[lsy]

I suspect it is actually a great strength of Europe that the attitude towards regulation (to put it perhaps overly simplistically, favoring more intangible rights over economic growth) precludes hype and bubble phenomena like the mentioned "creation of large, integrated data sets" or "young, innovative tech companies". This means that business, at least to some extent, is forced to address real-world issues and work at a more local level. What is seen as "innovative" in the US is typically merely rent-seeking or parasitic on the broader society, and it seems likely that slower, more measured growth is consistent with better outcomes overall.

It is also curious to me that the US and China are seen as examples of what to aim for, rather than as cautionary tales of what can happen with an excessive focus on growth. It is not clear to me that the general happiness of people in the US or China exceeds that of people in Europe. On the contrary, it seems that those two countries are almost constantly dealing with some horrible externality of unbridled focus on stock prices, revenues, growth etc, to the detriment of the broader social good. Housing crises, homelessness, rampant privacy violations, the expansion of police states to maintain the boundary between haves and have-nots, debt crises, long working hours and bad conditions — these are all phenomena that seem more prevalent in countries with a higher focus on "competitiveness". What good does it do a middle-class worker to make twice the absolute salary when they are spending half of it correcting for the deficiencies of their society?

[AlanYx]

>This means that business, at least to some extent, is forced to address real-world issues and work at a more local level.

If the regulatory burden prevents local businesses from getting off the ground because only foreign businesses have the deep pockets to comply ("The net effect of this burden of regulation is that only larger companies – which are often non-EU based – have the financial capacity and incentive to bear the costs of complying."), then in some sense these regulations work against the goal of issues being addressed at a local level.

[Aerroon]

>This means that business, at least to some extent, is forced to address real-world issues and work at a more local level. What is seen as "innovative" in the US is typically merely rent-seeking or parasitic on the broader society, and it seems likely that slower, more measured growth is consistent with better outcomes overall.

He says, on an American website, that he accessed through a browser made by an American company, that's running on an operating system made by an American company (or maybe Linux! Although even Torvalds moved to the US), running on a device... Well, it gets complicated. All the relevant options and combinations are non-European though.

ASML is like the only relevance of Europe here and they got started because of the US.

Why is there no European Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Google, Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Tencent, Sony etc? All the stuff is foreign, which means that we're constantly following foreign rules based on their culture. And slowly they have more become our rules and culture, because there were no real European alternatives.

[sofixa]

> Why is there no European Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Google, Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Tencent, Sony etc? All the stuff is foreign, which means that we're constantly following foreign rules based on their culture. And slowly they have more become our rules and culture, because there were no real European alternatives.

Philips (mostly Signify and co, but the brand is still Philips), Airbus (top 1 airplane manufacturer), VW Group, Stellantis, reMarkable, a ton of neobanks/fintechs the US could only dream of (Revolut, Monzo, N26, Bunq, Adyen to name but a few), Doctolib, Backmarket, Spotify (top music streaming platform in the world), Dassault Systemes (top industrial CAD), Amadeus (top 2 airline booking software), Booking.com, Ericsson (top 2 5G equipment provider), SAP (top 2 ERP provider), STMicro, NXP, Infineon (top semiconductor manufacturers for everything not on the cutting edge of personal/server computing), Zeiss (top 1 optics manufacturer), etc etc etc etc

It's not that there are none, it's that the new ones (some of which are extremely good) haven't grown to super high valuations yet.

[bjornsing]

You are assuming that we can carry on as we have for the last 50 years, stay competitive in existing industries and live well on our old merits indefinitely. I’m not so sure that’s true. I think it’s more likely that you’ll see a deteriorating situation, because of lost competitiveness in established industries but also because those established industries will become less important in relative terms. That decline will be very hard to handle politically.

[Workaccount2]

EU pulling an IBM or Hewlett-Packard.

[electrozav]

I agree wholeheartedly. There are many benefits still to be reaped from making this regulation more paperless and automated, while keeping it as a check against unsupervised growth.