While they weren't a startup, they were a small pharmaceutical company (Novo Nordisk). Yet Ozempic in its various forms totally upended the diet and "comfort food" marketplace. They even distorted the economy of Denmark... They face competition, and need a follow-on, but that's the nature of the pharma biz. Huge, big-loss, big-win field, and if anybody has a drug in any form that addresses Alzheimer's (for example), the profit will be damn near infinite.
Europe has all sorts of biotech/pharma. Heard of mRNA drugs? Germany, amongst other sites.
This has been posted a bunch of times [1] and argues for lax worker protections as a reasonable trade off for "innovation", which is fine if you're comfortable making the trade off of continuing trend of rapidly declining global fertility rates [2] because of economic insecurity (which governance.fyi goes into detail on [3]). Those arguing for people to have more kids while also arguing innovation requires making it easy to fire citizen workers, leading them to not have economic security and therefore not have kids will need to pick a lane. I also admit that fertility rate decline causes are numerous and complex, with the caveat that economic insecurity does not help based on all available data.
"You should economically suffer so that we can have a small cohort's idea of innovation" ain't gonna sell well to the general public, unless you're offering robust non employer government provided and guaranteed social safety nets in lieu of jobs (healthcare, housing, basic income, etc). If those safety nets are on offer, certainly, this piece's argument might hold some water.
One relevant motivation for innovators is to escape poverty or the risk of poverty. When you have an adequate social safety net, there is little incentive to overwork oneself in order to build something new. It’s also natural not to keep thinking on what big idea you want to go after for fame and fortune when neither is that much attractive.
Also, it’s worth noting most startups fail, and when that happens, founders are often worse off than when they started. Well born founders can try until something sticks, but poor ones have, at best, one chance.
That’s sounds like it should be even better to threaten people’s life to motivate them to be more innovative.
I think the best way to be innovative is to have peace of mind and be able to focus on something without being distracted by fear. Fear as a motivator doesn’t sound right.
Tesla, used in this example, was built by someone who lucked out from a capital perspective (Paypal) to itch an obsession. As you point out, most startups fail. Why has China succeed? State support, not venture capital. Why has Europe not succeed? Lack of will to provide state support to build the state capacity. Nation states have capital, they have workers, they can build or not build these systems. It is a choice.
Europe doesn't need a Tesla, they need a BYD. Learn from China, not the US. Innovation does not require what the author is calling for, imho.
> Tesla, used in this example, was built by someone who lucked out from a capital perspective (Paypal)
I have the impression Tesla existed before and Musk only took over it later.
> Europe doesn't need a Tesla, they need a BYD. Learn from China,
I completely agree with that. The Chinese model of state-supported industry seems a lot more efficient than the US model where companies compete with each other duplicating effort uncontrollably.
Their election system is also interesting - IIRC a candidate for position N needs to first go into position N-1 and demonstrate some competence. This would make a Donald Trump impossible.
Agree that I misspoke about the history of Tesla and it was taken over (commandeered even) by Musk from its founders. Appreciate the loose confirmation of my thesis from someone most likely smarter than me.
While they weren't a startup, they were a small pharmaceutical company (Novo Nordisk). Yet Ozempic in its various forms totally upended the diet and "comfort food" marketplace. They even distorted the economy of Denmark... They face competition, and need a follow-on, but that's the nature of the pharma biz. Huge, big-loss, big-win field, and if anybody has a drug in any form that addresses Alzheimer's (for example), the profit will be damn near infinite.
Europe has all sorts of biotech/pharma. Heard of mRNA drugs? Germany, amongst other sites.
This has been posted a bunch of times [1] and argues for lax worker protections as a reasonable trade off for "innovation", which is fine if you're comfortable making the trade off of continuing trend of rapidly declining global fertility rates [2] because of economic insecurity (which governance.fyi goes into detail on [3]). Those arguing for people to have more kids while also arguing innovation requires making it easy to fire citizen workers, leading them to not have economic security and therefore not have kids will need to pick a lane. I also admit that fertility rate decline causes are numerous and complex, with the caveat that economic insecurity does not help based on all available data.
"You should economically suffer so that we can have a small cohort's idea of innovation" ain't gonna sell well to the general public, unless you're offering robust non employer government provided and guaranteed social safety nets in lieu of jobs (healthcare, housing, basic income, etc). If those safety nets are on offer, certainly, this piece's argument might hold some water.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fworksinprogress.co%2...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=governance.fyi
One relevant motivation for innovators is to escape poverty or the risk of poverty. When you have an adequate social safety net, there is little incentive to overwork oneself in order to build something new. It’s also natural not to keep thinking on what big idea you want to go after for fame and fortune when neither is that much attractive.
Also, it’s worth noting most startups fail, and when that happens, founders are often worse off than when they started. Well born founders can try until something sticks, but poor ones have, at best, one chance.
That’s sounds like it should be even better to threaten people’s life to motivate them to be more innovative.
I think the best way to be innovative is to have peace of mind and be able to focus on something without being distracted by fear. Fear as a motivator doesn’t sound right.
Tesla, used in this example, was built by someone who lucked out from a capital perspective (Paypal) to itch an obsession. As you point out, most startups fail. Why has China succeed? State support, not venture capital. Why has Europe not succeed? Lack of will to provide state support to build the state capacity. Nation states have capital, they have workers, they can build or not build these systems. It is a choice.
Europe doesn't need a Tesla, they need a BYD. Learn from China, not the US. Innovation does not require what the author is calling for, imho.
What Is State Capacity? Does China Have It? Does America Really Lack It? - https://www.governance.fyi/p/what-is-state-capacity-does-chi... - November 13th, 2025
The size of BYD's factory - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42228138 - November 2024
> Tesla, used in this example, was built by someone who lucked out from a capital perspective (Paypal)
I have the impression Tesla existed before and Musk only took over it later.
> Europe doesn't need a Tesla, they need a BYD. Learn from China,
I completely agree with that. The Chinese model of state-supported industry seems a lot more efficient than the US model where companies compete with each other duplicating effort uncontrollably.
Their election system is also interesting - IIRC a candidate for position N needs to first go into position N-1 and demonstrate some competence. This would make a Donald Trump impossible.
Agree that I misspoke about the history of Tesla and it was taken over (commandeered even) by Musk from its founders. Appreciate the loose confirmation of my thesis from someone most likely smarter than me.