[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.