4 ms·

“The combined value of the top three internet companies in the Americas – so, basically, in America – is around $0.75tn (£0.5tn). In Asia, it’s around $0.5tn. I

by knz42 11y ago

“The combined value of the top three internet companies in the Americas – so, basically, in America – is around $0.75tn (£0.5tn). In Asia, it’s around $0.5tn. In Africa, it’s $50bn. And in Europe, it’s just $25bn.” In Europe, we have wealth redistribution. A few companies with so much concentrated financial power is not healthy.

apsec112 11y ago
Europe has plenty of big companies - Total, Volkswagen, ING, Daimler, Fiat, Siemens, Tesco, BMW, HSBC, Nestle. The problem is that it's very difficult to make new ones. "Mergers aside, the youngest firm in the CAC 40, [France's] main stock index, was founded in 1967."
dogma1138 11y ago
Sorry to burst your bubble but "In Europe we have X" is more often than not a "myth", Europe is much more closer to the US it in's overall outlook than most European would think. And as far as educated professionals go then Europe is actually considerably poorer than the US, so unless you're a low skilled worker I would not take so much pride in that.
adventured 11y ago
Europe has far more stagnant wealth than America does in fact. Europe's dynasties do not tend to give away their wealth, instead they pass it down through families for generations. Most of Europe's largest companies and fortunes are controlled through family dynasties. American billionaires always dominate the list of most philanthropic.[1] It's also why Europe sees such a low rate of turn-over among their billionaires, and why such a high proportion of their billionaires are derived inherited wealth. [2] [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2013/11/18/the-50-philanthropists-who-have-given-away-the-most-money/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2013/11/18/the-50-ph... [2] http://i.imgur.com/cvTR3q1.png http://i.imgur.com/cvTR3q1.png
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Is an operating business well described as stagnant wealth?
  - adventured 11y ago
    I think so, if vast wealth passes down through generations and occupies such a large portion of the ultra rich. Stagnant in this regard refers to wealth that is inherited. How about if Europe's entrenched old money prevents new money from arising, and is part of the problem? Money comes with obvious vast influence on politics. What if that old money acts to protect itself at the expense of economic dynamism and new wealth creation? I think it's a reasonable conclusion that that does in fact occur. Is bunched up old money inherently more conservative? I'd argue yes. The parent comment implies that wealth is more redistributed in Europe. That is plainly not true, given the extreme inheritance levels of their billionaires and lower rates of philanthropy. The wealth is also not inherently bound to the operations. You can give away your billions without sinking a business. Berkshire Hathaway isn't going to collapse when Buffett dies or gives his remaining wealth away (Burlington Northern railroad isn't going to tip over when he gives away his last shares, just as BMW wouldn't if the Quandt family ended their dynasty, ditto Walmart with the second generation of Walton heirs). Just as Microsoft isn't collapsing as Gates exits his formerly huge percentage share of ownership (he has gone from ~60% ownership to now ~3% since the IPO, obviously it has not seriously harmed Microsoft). There is a large, important question at the center of this that can be best illustrated by a rhetorical: is Howard Buffett (Warren's oldest son) the best qualified to run Berkshire Hathaway? What are the odds the Quandt family is best suited to steer BMW for the next hundred years? Or that Inditex should be run by the Ortega family forever, or that the Slim family should control such a large swath of telecom in Mexico for the next century? I think that kind of economic dominance by families is more often detrimental (loss of dynamism, too much wealth acquired without earning it) than beneficial, much as a cartel or monopoly ends up being.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      The wealth is also not inherently bound to the operations. Yes, obviously not. But that characteristic detracts from the suitability of "stagnant" as a descriptor.

by knz42 11y ago

apsec112 11y ago

Europe has plenty of big companies - Total, Volkswagen, ING, Daimler, Fiat, Siemens, Tesco, BMW, HSBC, Nestle. The problem is that it's very difficult to make new ones. "Mergers aside, the youngest firm in the CAC 40, [France's] main stock index, was founded in 1967."

dogma1138 11y ago

Sorry to burst your bubble but "In Europe we have X" is more often than not a "myth", Europe is much more closer to the US it in's overall outlook than most European would think. And as far as educated professionals go then Europe is actually considerably poorer than the US, so unless you're a low skilled worker I would not take so much pride in that.

adventured 11y ago

Europe has far more stagnant wealth than America does in fact. Europe's dynasties do not tend to give away their wealth, instead they pass it down through families for generations. Most of Europe's largest companies and fortunes are controlled through family dynasties. American billionaires always dominate the list of most philanthropic.[1] It's also why Europe sees such a low rate of turn-over among their billionaires, and why such a high proportion of their billionaires are derived inherited wealth. [2] [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2013/11/18/the-50-philanthropists-who-have-given-away-the-most-money/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2013/11/18/the-50-ph... [2] http://i.imgur.com/cvTR3q1.png http://i.imgur.com/cvTR3q1.png

maxerickson 11y ago
Is an operating business well described as stagnant wealth?
- adventured 11y ago
  I think so, if vast wealth passes down through generations and occupies such a large portion of the ultra rich. Stagnant in this regard refers to wealth that is inherited. How about if Europe's entrenched old money prevents new money from arising, and is part of the problem? Money comes with obvious vast influence on politics. What if that old money acts to protect itself at the expense of economic dynamism and new wealth creation? I think it's a reasonable conclusion that that does in fact occur. Is bunched up old money inherently more conservative? I'd argue yes. The parent comment implies that wealth is more redistributed in Europe. That is plainly not true, given the extreme inheritance levels of their billionaires and lower rates of philanthropy. The wealth is also not inherently bound to the operations. You can give away your billions without sinking a business. Berkshire Hathaway isn't going to collapse when Buffett dies or gives his remaining wealth away (Burlington Northern railroad isn't going to tip over when he gives away his last shares, just as BMW wouldn't if the Quandt family ended their dynasty, ditto Walmart with the second generation of Walton heirs). Just as Microsoft isn't collapsing as Gates exits his formerly huge percentage share of ownership (he has gone from ~60% ownership to now ~3% since the IPO, obviously it has not seriously harmed Microsoft). There is a large, important question at the center of this that can be best illustrated by a rhetorical: is Howard Buffett (Warren's oldest son) the best qualified to run Berkshire Hathaway? What are the odds the Quandt family is best suited to steer BMW for the next hundred years? Or that Inditex should be run by the Ortega family forever, or that the Slim family should control such a large swath of telecom in Mexico for the next century? I think that kind of economic dominance by families is more often detrimental (loss of dynamism, too much wealth acquired without earning it) than beneficial, much as a cartel or monopoly ends up being.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    The wealth is also not inherently bound to the operations. Yes, obviously not. But that characteristic detracts from the suitability of "stagnant" as a descriptor.