[_fat_santa]

The US system is built to support entrepreneurship while the EU system broadly is to support the consumer and employee. The US will never be able to match the EU's consumer and employee protections and the EU will never be able to match the US's ease of doing business, because to have one you have to fundamentally give in on the other.

Depending on who you ask, one system is wildly better than the other, but at the end of they day they are just different systems with different tradeoffs.

[logifail]

> The US system is built to support entrepreneurship while the EU system broadly is to support the consumer and employee

I disagree: the EU system broadly is there to support _the incumbants_

"Regulatory capture" is the less kind way to put it.

[watwut]

US system seems to facilitate quick creation of monopolies and then keeps them in power long term. There is quick competition, winner takes it all and then it is it forever.

[hyhatqtv]

There are plenty of similar “monopolies” in the EU they just value safely exploiting consumers more than rapid growth.

Regardless US tech monopolies are almost as dominant in the EU as in they are in the US”. At least local companies wouldn’t syphon money to a different continent and could be regulated

[watwut]

American monopolies are not much regulated, they are entirely above the law. The legal system heavily biased toward rich corporations.

I did not said europe does not have monopolies. I said America has "winner takes all" economy that systematically creates monopolies everywhere you look. It does not create competition, it creates what you call "incumbent".

Americans look down on markets where middle sized companies constanty fight for customers. Great company is the one that has say in goverment, cornered market and trying to make it comply to law is seen as attack.

[hyhatqtv]

> American monopolies are not much regulated, they are entirely above the law

Yeah exactly and they are only barely more regulated in the EU. Apple, Google, Microslop and FB almost completely control their respective markets in the EU to a comparable degree they do in the US. Its still winner takes all.

EU might fine them occasionally but that’s just the cost of doing business with hardly any consequences (remember the third part iOS app stores in the EU? I barely do…)

Outside of tech there are plenty of homegrown conglomerates and oligopolies in the EU, I don’t see how is there meanimgfully more competition outside of low value added sectors where small/medium companies are fighting for scraps.

> Great company is the one that has say in goverment

Yeah, exactly the same as in Europe (and unlike in the US there are hardly many alternatives besides going that route if you want to grow signficantly).

> trying to make it comply to law is seen as attack.

That might be a differentiator, of course companies generally find it less objectionable to comply with laws they had a significant say in writing like in much of Europe.

[WarmWash]

I think you may be conflating "dominant player(s)" with "monopoly". The US has close to zero monopolies if you disregard natural/patent/IP monopolies.

Its not illegal to have a product that consumers overwhelming prefer over the competitors. Google was ruled a monopoly because it was paying other services to default to Google. But it was ultimately foolish for Google because people given the choice still overwhelmingly picked Google.

[hyhatqtv]

> ultimately foolish for Google

Yes and no. i.e. MS would just pay Apple instead if Google chose not to. In a way the EU “neutral” list/wizard for picking the default browser and search engine could be somewhat beneficial to Google.

[robocat]

Monopoly creation is a systemic outcome (e.g. network effects), and likely has little to do with the US specifically. The exception is IP laws like patents that grant monopolies (plus the international politics of trade that push those powers into other jurisdictions e.g. TPPA).

Also monopoly breakup is more affected by jurisdiction.

[organsnyder]

The US system is biased this way, as well.

[bloppe]

In a healthy market economy, entrepreneurs are meant to support the consumer, and they do so partly by competing with one another for talent, which requires supporting the employee. We could argue ad nauseam about the health of the US's market economy, but ultimately is has resulted in unignorably higher wages than in Europe, even at the lower end of the economic ladder.

This probably also has a lot to do with it's much tighter market integration than the EU, although they seem to be finally addressing that issue with the 28th regime.

A popular theory of Europe's historic economic outperformance relative to the rest of the world, leading up to the industrial revolution, relies on competitive market theory: constant warfare spurring innovation, as well as relatively free movement of the best and brightest to seek greener pastures elsewhere on the continent. These days, the most ambitious Europeans tend to move to America to raise money and find talent, and it seems many EU countries are finally waking up to the fact that they need to do better to support entrepreneurship.

[throwaway-blaze]

I would posit that many EU citizens are still living with the idea of their historic economic outperformance even though it has not been true for many years.

[glad_duck]

It depends on the means of production (Marx had the point). One thing is if you want to open a factory, then those regulations and limitations may protect the market, consumers and reduce fraud. If you want to start a software company and sell a smartphone app, that's a very different story. I assume Germany is still in 19th century in this regard, favoring big businesses who don't mind to wait 152 days or more and pay 10K. Modern economy, or at least a big part of it, is more about agility though, for good or for bad.

[keiferski]

I think this is a false dichotomy. Consumer return policies, customer service, etc. tend to be much better in the US than in the EU.

I would characterize it rather that the US is pro-business and pro-consumer, but somewhat anti-average worker.

[9dev]

Is that so? In Germany for example, you have a legal right to return anything you purchased via a remote means of communication - so e.g., the internet, or a phone call - free of charge, within two weeks, and it must be simple to do so; if a vendor tries to obfuscate how to cancel a purchase contract, you can simply write them an email.

[keiferski]

yeah most US companies have return policies of 30 days or more, no questions asked.

[pwinnski]

The word "most" is doing a lot here. Europe guarantees consumer rights by law, while the US relies on companies adopting the practices voluntarily. Most do, but larger companies more universally than smaller, and it's by no means universal.

[keiferski]

It's the reality for the vast majority of larger companies. Quibbling with word choice is really not a good argument.

[jeromegv]

We are talking of entrepreneurship and new companies, what small business are required to do for returns/refunds in the US is definitely not ahead of Europe for consumer protection.

It's not word choice, you are just making the wrong argument.

[lompad]

Try canceling your NYT subscription.

[glad_duck]

Don't buy if you don't like company policy, no need to have a law. There is plenty of choice in the US. Some companies even offer 90 days (again, no laws required).

[9dev]

I'd find it tiresome real quick to always have to research before purchasing anything if the vendor will treat me with respect. Having a baseline of what you can expect from any business relation guaranteed by law is pretty great, really.

[tyg13]

most large companies, maybe, but small-to-medium-sized businesses can and will tell you to take a hike. there are no consumer protections in the US regarding returns beyond the goodwill of the company

[glad_duck]

That's why they are dying (those who tell you to take a hike). Why would I buy from a small business without a possibility to return if I can buy from Amazon with guaranteed 30 days? It's your choice. Honestly, I bought enough stuff from small to medium companies and most of them allow returns. If not, it's my choice not to buy. Not everything should be a law, and laws are not free, somebody has to pay (just like for 30 day return). Guess who pays? Well, it's ... you.

[9dev]

> Why would I buy from a small business without a possibility to return if I can buy from Amazon with guaranteed 30 days?

Perhaps because you don't want all retail to be Amazon?

> laws are not free, somebody has to pay

Isn't that a bit hyperbole? That law is written once, and delivers its effects afterwards. In contrast, millions of buyers have to investigate return policies every day without such a law. Is that really a better use of time?

[scottyah]

As it should be when you buy a product IMO. It only works out in high-trust societies and the business model is ruined by scammers. REI is a great example, some people would buy shoes, wear them out, then return them years later because the policy accepted it. It's obviously not a way to keep a company in business, but people just don't care because the reward for them is just too good to pass up.

There's a lot of overlap between protecting consumers and enabling scammers.

[WarmWash]

One of the major reasons US consumers shop with megacorp over small business is because of the no hassle returns.

[9dev]

Exactly my point. In Germany I can order from the smallest of webshops without even reading their return policy, because I am guaranteed favourable terms by law.

[toast0]

In the US, if the remote merchant doesn't accept a return (or is non responsive), a credit card chargeback would be in order.

The customer almost always wins those. And the merchant always has to pay a fee for the chargeback, even when they win, so they're incentivized to avoid them.

The merchant agreement isn't as effective as a well enforced law, but it's pretty close.

[ahlCVA]

This isn't without downsides though: As somebody with a niche technical hobby, it is hard for me to order from many suppliers because they understandably don't want to deal with consumer protection laws and thus exclude B2C transactions outright ("Verkauf nur an Gewerbetreibende").

I would be fine with waiving my right to returns but this is not possible on purpose, so my only options are to shop somewhere else (often not possible) or found a company (not possible because it would be Liebhaberei - "Running a company without intent to make profits").

[glad_duck]

B2B company in the US rarely sell to consumers either and their return policy is very different. Not necessary "no return", but only if damaged, not per spec etc. Since we don't have consumer protection laws here I guess it's based on different company structure and expected revenue. In your case it may also be VAT implications (similar problem here with sales tax).

[frugalmail]

So the person that wants to sell that ultra-unique item that isn't produced by mega-corp, and the person that wants to buy that ultra-unique item despite unfavorable return policies never gets their needs met.

[9dev]

Why would that be the case? Maybe you’re thinking of customised or commissioned items, which are an exception explicitly called out in the law and require a defect by the seller to return (so you can’t just return eg a painting made for you on a whim, but if it arrives damaged, you can)

[tchalla]

What happens after 2 weeks?

[9dev]

You loose the right to change your mind and return the goods without any reason given, but of course you still have warranty of 6 months; if anything breaks with the product in that time, you can request the seller to make up by offering a repair, replacement, or refund (whatever they deem most appropriate), and while the seller can contest that, they are obliged to prove it’s your fault, not theirs. After that timeframe, this obligation reverses.

[tchalla]

How easy is it to enforce that warranty?

[sandcat_]

That’s not true. From mandatory refunds when selling online, to capped credit card fees, to longer warranties, the EU is clearly better for consumer rights. Some US businesses have realized that openly screwing your customers isn’t good business practice, but they’re somewhat of the exception I hear (and a lot of those companies offer the same policies, or better, in the EU, e.g. Costco)

Apple is another good example. Their base warranty is two years in the EU versus one year in the US, and there’s additional protection on top in many EU countries that extends it to the expected life of the product, in some cases as long as 5-6 years.

And again, all of these are backed up by the law, not just a policy that the company can revoke or decide not to enforce.

[keiferski]

It seems to me that if there is some sort of law or regulation that can be passed, then that policy will be better in the EU. If the better service is a result of competition, then it will likely be better in the US.

In general though, culturally, the US is much more "the customer is always right", whereas in the EU, it's considered a hassle to cater to customers that much. This mentality translates across the economy as a whole.

At least that's in my experience of being American and living in the EU for the last 10 years.

[lazyasciiart]

I have never received cash compensation for a delayed flight in the US, but I have in the EU. In my opinion, in the EU if the business screws up it’s their problem: in the US it is the customers, unless you shop somewhere large enough to voluntarily cover their mistakes. Which is, indeed, one reason that anybody can run a business with nothing in the US.

[throwaway-blaze]

And all of Apple's products are much more expensive in the EU. In Austria, a MacBook Air starts at EUR1199, and the same device starts at USD1099. At today's exchange rate, that European device costs USD1360, or nearly 20% more.

We can argue about the consumer friendliness of the regulations in the EU but they also add demonstrably to the cost of tech products (and likely other categories).

[hyhatqtv]

Apple.com like all retailers in the US don’t include sales taxes in the listed price while in Europe ~20% VAT is included.

So if you bother comparing apples to apples that MacBook starts at around $1,145 in Germany… if you actually want that 1 extra year of warranty and get Apple Care in the US it actually becomes cheaper in Europe

[deaux]

> We can argue about the consumer friendliness of the regulations in the EU but they also add demonstrably to the cost of tech product

Nope, they don't. You'd have to compare with some countries that are 1. Not the US 2. Have less consumer protections than the EU. And guess what? Apple products are also significantly more expensive than the US there. But hey, half your comments on here are this kind of EU bashing based on grade school reasoning.

It's surprising to see on HN of all places people unaware that Apple products (and almost all other tech products) have been a lot cheaper in the US than elsewhere for decades.

So much FUD here, same for the Bunny thread. It doesn't feel organic anymore.

[echoangle]

> Consumer return policies, customer service, etc. tend to be much better in the US than in the EU.

Maybe the ones voluntarily offered by companies, but not the legal ones.

[keiferski]

Not sure if that matters much. Only the actual end result does.

The better policies given by US companies is also likely driven by competition, so by definition they wouldn't be something that a government regulation could accomplish (other than to incentivize more competition.)

[echoangle]

It does because for one you can go to court. If a company stops playing nice because they think you’re defrauding them if you tell them your package went missing during transit, company niceness doesn’t get you anything. (That’s a random example btw, I don’t know how this is handled legally in the US. The point is that there are situations where you actually want the law on your side).

[lazyasciiart]

You don’t have to go to court even - there is usually a regulatory body that will enforce these for you. This is the whole reason why there is an image of America as sue-happy: they have chosen a regulatory system of “so sue them” instead of a functioning consumer protection system (or any authority with the ability to enforce the ADA, for example).

[keiferski]

Suing people and companies is a national pastime in America. I really don't think the EU has an advantage there...

[frugalmail]

This is the result of the US embracing capitalism more than Germany. The market has set minimum expectations, but outliers with other benefits can have an opportunity to thrive until they have an opportunity to meet those minimum expectations.

Although, this is rapidly changing. Places like California are putting in similar regulatory barriers and excessive minimum taxation.

[wbl]

Except every two weeks when he gets a bigger paycheck than most senior UK government positions

[danmaz74]

Even when the UK was in the EU, you could create a limited liability company (LTD) for something like 200 pounds or less, no capital needed. So it's not true at all that setting up a business at a low cost is somehow against EU legislation.

[petesergeant]

> the EU system

The issue in question is a Germanic system, not an EU one. Outside of Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, most EU countries are far more sensible with capitalization requirements.

[hyhatqtv]

> the EU system

Well in this specific case there is no such thing. Laws and regulations vary wildly and there are countries in the EU where you can register a company almost immediately at low cost.

[blks]

25k requirement doesn’t protect anyone, just prevents regular contractors from easily registering limited liability company.