The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I strongly disagree. The super wealthy often have a high interest in helping others to create new enterprises (And I don't mean just as investment, but really e.g. as professors at universities). I don't see the slightest indication that this would be a major source for the lack of more entrepreneurship in the West. Apart from patenting, environmental and social protection laws, and such stuff, Western laws are much more friendly to social mobility than in India or China. In India, you might not even learn reading and writing, if you have bad luck with respect to which family you are born.
An increasing middle class helps of course, but it maybe the other way around. The middle class increases, if there are many people with a mentality keen on founding enterprises. In the West you can have a nice live by just doing what others want you to be done, if you are talented. In India or China, this is much more difficult. And are there really so much more stories of people getting super rich - normed to the population, than in the West? And is this wealth created in the 'real economy' or just good luck on volatile financial markets?
For sure you don't want to take their laws over to reach a better result.
Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Western laws are much more friendly to social mobility than in India or China
that's true, and one of the positive forces released by early industrialism, new money earned in the factories enabled the peasants to aspire to a middle class life, less tied down to land and season.
there was more social justice in the meritocracy of money than when monarchy and aristocracy were the only rule.
the problem came with pollution on the ground and in the skies and waters, and in the psychology of the last century, where the relative good of money was claimed as absolute, ala ayn rand.
here's an opinion you may enjoy, martin
The Archdruid Report
It's easy to turn scientism into the villain of this particular piece, but scientism is simply a recent example of the human habit of using successful technique to define the universe. Hunting and gathering peoples see the animals they hunt and the plants they gather as the building blocks of the cosmos; farming cultures see their world in terms of soil, seed, and the cycle of the year; the efforts of classical civilization to inhabit a wholly logical world, and those of modern industrial civilization to build a wholly scientific one, are simply two more examples. Nor was scientism always as maladaptive as it is today. During the heyday of the industrial age, it directed human effort toward what was, at that time, a successful human ecology. In retrospect, scientism's limitless faith in the power of human reason turned out to be a case study in what the ancient Greeks called hubris, the overweening pride of the doomed. At the time, though, this wasn't obvious at all, and there's a valid sense in which scientism has become problematic today simply because its time of usefulness is over.Still, the cultures best suited to the deindustrial age will have to embrace an attitude toward nature differing sharply from scientism: an attitude that starts from humility rather than hubris, remembering that "humility" shares the same root as "humus," the soil on which we depend for the food that keeps us alive. That attitude offers few justifications for today's arrogant notions about humanity's place in nature. Still, just as Greek logic was pulled out of the rubble of the classical world and put to use in a string of successor civilizations, the scientific method is worth hauling out of the wreckage of the industrial age, and could function just as well in a culture of environmental humility as it does in today's culture of environmental hubris. My guess, for what it's worth, is that the environmental sciences offer the most likely meeting ground for such a project of rescue.
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 24 2 comments
by Oui - Sep 19 19 comments
by Oui - Sep 13 35 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 11 5 comments
by Cat - Sep 13 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 2 2 comments
by Oui - Sep 302 comments
by Oui - Sep 29
by Oui - Sep 28
by Oui - Sep 275 comments
by Oui - Sep 2618 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 242 comments
by Oui - Sep 1919 comments
by gmoke - Sep 173 comments
by Oui - Sep 153 comments
by Oui - Sep 15
by Oui - Sep 1411 comments
by Oui - Sep 1335 comments
by Cat - Sep 139 comments
by Oui - Sep 127 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 115 comments
by Oui - Sep 929 comments
by Oui - Sep 713 comments
by Oui - Sep 61 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 22 comments
by gmoke - Sep 2