4 ms·

Watch out for a scaling fallacy. If the Dutch are just as entrepreneurial as Americans, then there will be way more successful Americans and American companies

Watch out for a scaling fallacy. If the Dutch are just as entrepreneurial as Americans, then there will be way more successful Americans and American companies because the USA is so much bigger. Ditto for China. You'd really need to calculate "successful entrepreneur per 100,000 people" or something like that. Also, selection bias. You're on a tech website. Switching to Denmark for a second, the Danes are incredibly ahead and successful in the wind power industry. How many people think of Denmark as a tech centre? Probably not many. We focus on software and there, one or two regions of America have done extremely well so we give it more attention. That said, I do believe Europe and the EU in particular is discouraging innovation and entrepreneurialism at a pretty staggering rate. The Vestager rulings send a loud message that the EU considers hurting competitors to be anti-competitive behaviour (vs harm to consumers). That's a pretty big disincentive to work hard to get big.

raverbashing 7y ago
> considers hurting competitors to be anti-competitive behaviour (vs harm to consumers) Read up on SEC decisions (including the AMD vs Intel one) and you'll see similar lines of thought Because in the end hurting competition is hurting consumers. Like in MS actions against BeOS
coldtea 7y ago
>You'd really need to calculate "successful entrepreneur per 100,000 people" or something like that. Even that wouldn't be enough, because the supporting apparatus and immediate market for a Dutch entrepreneur would be still very much smaller than for a US based on - so Dutch entrepreneurs should expect less support and not as good environment for their steps to grow their company, even if as a ratio there are e.g. twice the Dutch entrepreneurs for 100,000 people compared to the US. >That's a pretty big disincentive to work hard to get big. That sounds good. Now if we (EU) could also prevent other countries from having corporate behemoths that would be perfect...
- repolfx 7y ago
  You're assuming you can know (or rather, that a bureaucracy can know) what the 'correct' size for any given business is. Google is a medium sized company by many measures. There are companies with far more employees, offices, and physical footprint for example. Who are you to say that this company is a "behemoth" but for example Volkswagen ($221 billion of yearly revenues) is not? Where is the line drawn? I think a lot of entrepreneurs are motivated by the thoughts of huge success. If a government says that success will be punished the moment two-bit competitors complain (as e.g. tiny websites that nobody ever cared about complained about Google Shopping), then why set out on the arduous journey to create a big firm? AMD vs Intel is different. In cases like that, it's obvious how to avoid problems: don't pay companies to not use your competitors. That seems reasonable. But with something like Google Shopping vs companies so small and worthless that the EU's press release doesn't even bother to name them (nor does Wikipedia's page on the case), it's not at all clear what lessons entrepreneurs should draw. Don't add features to your own product? Don't be too successful? I followed all three cases closely and frankly to me the enforcement looks arbitrary and vindictive (and yes I'm an "EU citizen"). The Commission decided - entirely arbitrarily - that Google Shopping must be the dominant way to buy things online, which will come as news to people who use Amazon or Ebay or European equivalents like Zalando.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >You're assuming you can know (or rather, that a bureaucracy can know) what the 'correct' size for any given business is. No, I assume I know what kind of businesses I prefer to deal with, and that is smaller... >Google is a medium sized company by many measures. There are companies with far more employees, offices, and physical footprint for example. Who are you to say that this company is a "behemoth" but for example Volkswagen ($221 billion of yearly revenues) is not? Where is the line drawn? Wherever the people and their votes/laws want to draw it, with as many exceptions to the rule as they like? >I think a lot of entrepreneurs are motivated by the thoughts of huge success. If a government says that success will be punished the moment two-bit competitors complain (as e.g. tiny websites that nobody ever cared about complained about Google Shopping), then why set out on the arduous journey to create a big firm? Well, then don't. That's fine by me (people not setting out "to create a big firm"), and would be totally OK in my perfect world. Now those are personal preferences. But ,y main point is not communism but democracy: people being asked, and being able to decide and set course for the society they like. As opposed to letting the "laws of historical materialism" (communism), the fuhrer (fascism), or "the invisible hand of the market" (capitalism) decide for them...

raverbashing 7y ago

> considers hurting competitors to be anti-competitive behaviour (vs harm to consumers) Read up on SEC decisions (including the AMD vs Intel one) and you'll see similar lines of thought Because in the end hurting competition is hurting consumers. Like in MS actions against BeOS

coldtea 7y ago

>You'd really need to calculate "successful entrepreneur per 100,000 people" or something like that. Even that wouldn't be enough, because the supporting apparatus and immediate market for a Dutch entrepreneur would be still very much smaller than for a US based on - so Dutch entrepreneurs should expect less support and not as good environment for their steps to grow their company, even if as a ratio there are e.g. twice the Dutch entrepreneurs for 100,000 people compared to the US. >That's a pretty big disincentive to work hard to get big. That sounds good. Now if we (EU) could also prevent other countries from having corporate behemoths that would be perfect...

repolfx 7y ago
You're assuming you can know (or rather, that a bureaucracy can know) what the 'correct' size for any given business is. Google is a medium sized company by many measures. There are companies with far more employees, offices, and physical footprint for example. Who are you to say that this company is a "behemoth" but for example Volkswagen ($221 billion of yearly revenues) is not? Where is the line drawn? I think a lot of entrepreneurs are motivated by the thoughts of huge success. If a government says that success will be punished the moment two-bit competitors complain (as e.g. tiny websites that nobody ever cared about complained about Google Shopping), then why set out on the arduous journey to create a big firm? AMD vs Intel is different. In cases like that, it's obvious how to avoid problems: don't pay companies to not use your competitors. That seems reasonable. But with something like Google Shopping vs companies so small and worthless that the EU's press release doesn't even bother to name them (nor does Wikipedia's page on the case), it's not at all clear what lessons entrepreneurs should draw. Don't add features to your own product? Don't be too successful? I followed all three cases closely and frankly to me the enforcement looks arbitrary and vindictive (and yes I'm an "EU citizen"). The Commission decided - entirely arbitrarily - that Google Shopping must be the dominant way to buy things online, which will come as news to people who use Amazon or Ebay or European equivalents like Zalando.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >You're assuming you can know (or rather, that a bureaucracy can know) what the 'correct' size for any given business is. No, I assume I know what kind of businesses I prefer to deal with, and that is smaller... >Google is a medium sized company by many measures. There are companies with far more employees, offices, and physical footprint for example. Who are you to say that this company is a "behemoth" but for example Volkswagen ($221 billion of yearly revenues) is not? Where is the line drawn? Wherever the people and their votes/laws want to draw it, with as many exceptions to the rule as they like? >I think a lot of entrepreneurs are motivated by the thoughts of huge success. If a government says that success will be punished the moment two-bit competitors complain (as e.g. tiny websites that nobody ever cared about complained about Google Shopping), then why set out on the arduous journey to create a big firm? Well, then don't. That's fine by me (people not setting out "to create a big firm"), and would be totally OK in my perfect world. Now those are personal preferences. But ,y main point is not communism but democracy: people being asked, and being able to decide and set course for the society they like. As opposed to letting the "laws of historical materialism" (communism), the fuhrer (fascism), or "the invisible hand of the market" (capitalism) decide for them...