[t8sr]

Most new GDP growth since the 90s has and will continue to come from capturing new industries, like large scale web tech, genetic technology, space flight and modern investment finance.

For all of these industries, you need a critical mass of specialists and capital, and so they can only be captured by very large companies. (Although SMBs can survive in some parts of the value chain, which is where Switzerland seems to live.)

Americans (and the PRC) are very good at creating large new companies. Europe not so much - we have the money and universities, but also a lot of German Angst and a complicated internal market, not to mention heavy regulation.

Being around startups, I’m also pretty surprised how unsophisticated many EU investors are - good ideas get severely underfunded, while everyone piles into random ML and crypto scams, only to loose all their money.

Over time, this adds up to missing growth compared to the Americans. And we're so used to being rich that we can't conceive of what the continent will look like once the money is gone, so long-term economic outlook doesn't get much attention from the electorate.

[pas]

Countries doesn't have to be on the cutting-bleeding edge of innovation, what they need is to have sane tax laws to keep some of the economic surplus at home.

That said, yes, the startup scene in the EU is ridiculous, both investors and startups are subpar. There's too much nepotism and cronyism, entrenched interests, and other barriers to adoption for most products and services, and there's absolutely not enough capital for doing proper R&D, marketing and building a sustainable revenue stream.

[t8sr]

I don't agree. If Europe stops having pharma companies, then whoever does have them can dictate prices. If we don't have chip foundries, then we depend on the US and China for telecommunications, and need to live with their standards and their roadmaps. If we don't have investors, then all our new companies end up owned by Americans and relegated to a back office.

Being the place where the modern world is designed means you get a say in how it runs. If we give that up, it'll be the yanks' world - we'll just live in it.

[pas]

Europe is a big market, as condition of marketing some drug it can require having some capacity inside the EU, etc.

And similarly for chip foundries. Of course with chips the real trick is that the foundries depend on Europe due to ASML, but yes, your general point stands, and it's important.

What doesn't make sense is to prop up "domestic" companies that - in theory - play the same role in the global supply chain, but when actually it's time for them to step up, they just fell over and the whole things turns out to be three crony ducks, drunk on fancy local wine, playing big business.

There's no need to get the bleeding edge node factory here, but there's many advantages to having some capacity of the already well-understood high-efficiency high-productivity node here.

There's plenty of endogenous and unmet demand in Europe, but there's a lack of culture of providing long-termish solutions for it. (As in the EU funds very short-termist things, and there's the continuously ongoing land subsidy problem.)

[polotics]

You seem to be under the impression that companies are things that exist inside of countries. I put it to you that, except for mafia led places where the rule of law doesn't exist (cough, Russia... but not only) companies are quite separate entities.

[t8sr]

This isn't Cyberpunk 2077. The US reaps huge benefits from having companies like Google, Facebook and Microsoft subject to their laws and regulatory oversight, and owned by their capital. This is why lobbying is such a profitable business.