The Future of European Competitiveness(commission.europa.eu)
commission.europa.eu
The Future of European Competitiveness
https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/97e481fd-2dc3-412d-be4c-f152a8232961_en
128 comments
>No EU company with market cap >100b EURO
am i dumb? does this not include nordo novisk?
am i dumb? does this not include nordo novisk?
The thing is though that I want to move to Europe precisely for all these same reasons. And I want to do it with my USA dollars and wealth that enabled it, so I do recognize the dissonance there.
Are Europeans happier due to all of the reasons you listed? Do you enable wealth to grow at the expense of the happiness of its residents if you implement the reforms needed to “move fast and break things”? Are Americans happier due to this wealth and entrepreneurship? I don’t think so, they seem pretty miserable right now. Overconsumption and having too much has made this generation have a lower life expectancy than the last, a stunning result.
It would be unwise to pass these changes and enrich a few wealthy Europeans at the top and instill serfdom again and wealth inequality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report
Are Europeans happier due to all of the reasons you listed? Do you enable wealth to grow at the expense of the happiness of its residents if you implement the reforms needed to “move fast and break things”? Are Americans happier due to this wealth and entrepreneurship? I don’t think so, they seem pretty miserable right now. Overconsumption and having too much has made this generation have a lower life expectancy than the last, a stunning result.
It would be unwise to pass these changes and enrich a few wealthy Europeans at the top and instill serfdom again and wealth inequality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report
Problem is that it's not sustainable. We can't defend ourselves, our economies are de-industrializing, we have right and left radical taking over political spectrum all the while our pension and healthcare systems are moving ever closer to a breaking point.
The careful approach may have brought as pretty far. But isn't working anymore. It hasn't worked since 2008 at least.
The careful approach may have brought as pretty far. But isn't working anymore. It hasn't worked since 2008 at least.
> We can't defend ourselves, our economies are de-industrializing, we have right and left radical taking over political spectrum all the while our pension and healthcare systems are moving ever closer to a breaking point.
Other than the defense part, the same could be said for the US.
Other than the defense part, the same could be said for the US.
The US has very rosy economic future projections compared to Europe, and frankly the rest of the world. Don't be fooled by sensational headlines and chronically online college kids complaining.
Rosy in comparison to the rest of the world - maybe
Rosy in comparison to 1976~2000 - no
I'm under the impression it's been (sort of) proven (but I have no source) that the major reason for 'college kids complaining' is precisely because of the perceived loss in quality of life, purchasing power and access to {healtchare, safety, community, third spaces} when compared to prior generations
Rosy in comparison to 1976~2000 - no
I'm under the impression it's been (sort of) proven (but I have no source) that the major reason for 'college kids complaining' is precisely because of the perceived loss in quality of life, purchasing power and access to {healtchare, safety, community, third spaces} when compared to prior generations
I'm glad you mentioned 'perceived' loss in quality of life. I think that is what is being argued, does the perception meet the reality?
It could be that the major reason for 'college kids perception of loss in quality of life' is that the rise of ad-driven media, as opposed to the previous generation's subscription model, leads to more sensationalized news to drive clicks. Combine that with online forums (echo chambers) that make it easier to complain to a sympathetic audience. College kids are also more susceptible to recency bias, they didn't live through previous times of uncertainty and have no memories of cold wars or the turbulence that previous generations lived through.
It could be that the major reason for 'college kids perception of loss in quality of life' is that the rise of ad-driven media, as opposed to the previous generation's subscription model, leads to more sensationalized news to drive clicks. Combine that with online forums (echo chambers) that make it easier to complain to a sympathetic audience. College kids are also more susceptible to recency bias, they didn't live through previous times of uncertainty and have no memories of cold wars or the turbulence that previous generations lived through.
To me it seems that even software engineers and bankers in US and UK, at least those who don’t have parental support, will struggle to ever attain the things that are achievable to moderately ambitious european kids from the lowest wealth and income deciles at 25-30 in a wide range of professions: 40 hour workweeks, comfortable middle class lifestyle, home ownership in appreciating, investment grade old real estate in historical city centres.
Do the future projections suggest that those gains will be shared equitably or lead to greater happiness and life outcomes for Americans?
These are economic projections, not sociopolitical ones.
The harvest looks very likely to increase all else being equal. How it is distributed and how the farm is managed in the future is another matter.
The harvest looks very likely to increase all else being equal. How it is distributed and how the farm is managed in the future is another matter.
Ah yes, if we all work hard, then the bosses can buy another Ferrari next year.
The US as a statistic, perhaps. As a collection of people... not sure, they seem pretty angry already.
A MAGA victory, now or in the future, can burn it all to the ground. The political situation is incredibly volatile.
Not sure that the US has worked since 2008 either. The streets are full of homeless. Half the population is angry enough (about what I'm not sure), that they are about to elect a self described dictator.
Your concerns are legitimate but the dream of an ever growing production isn’t sustainable either. But that is ok: not being the most powerful within a group is totally fine.
On the defense issue, I don’t really see where the threat would come from.
Russia isn’t in such a great place militarily either. It would be incredibly culturally strange for China to invade that far away and I don’t know that their military is configured for that anyway. They may influence and sabotage but would never attack Europe militarily IMO. Middle East and North Africa states don’t pose much of a threat still in an actual military conflict.
Who does that leave to defend against? America?
Russia isn’t in such a great place militarily either. It would be incredibly culturally strange for China to invade that far away and I don’t know that their military is configured for that anyway. They may influence and sabotage but would never attack Europe militarily IMO. Middle East and North Africa states don’t pose much of a threat still in an actual military conflict.
Who does that leave to defend against? America?
> Who does that leave to defend against?
Maybe the criminal gangs, who already have capacity rivaling and sometimes surpassing European governments?
Or maybe killing, gang raping, shooting, bombing and looting is not an actual military conflict, because the soldiers don't wear uniforms, and thus nothing for the busy Europeans to mind.
Maybe the criminal gangs, who already have capacity rivaling and sometimes surpassing European governments?
Or maybe killing, gang raping, shooting, bombing and looting is not an actual military conflict, because the soldiers don't wear uniforms, and thus nothing for the busy Europeans to mind.
Those are big problems, but the issue is a lack of will, not a lack of military strength. If the will situation changed those threats could be gone within a week.
That's laughable. Or really, it's tragicomic. If you don't have the will power, you have nothing. How can you not have the will to defend your civilians against the most horrible crimes and looting from organized criminals? Saying that you could fix it if you only wanted sounds like a guy in a bar saying he could beat you if only he wanted. Sure.
In South America they do put in the military against criminal gangs. Why don't the Europeans? Especially considering that the criminal gangs there are predominately consisting of foreigners, meaning they are de-facto a military matter.
In South America they do put in the military against criminal gangs. Why don't the Europeans? Especially considering that the criminal gangs there are predominately consisting of foreigners, meaning they are de-facto a military matter.
We are getting old, are having few if any children, yet our social contract is built on a series of Ponzi schemes that become unmaintainable under such circumstances. The temporary band-aid fix of mass migration is seemingly bringing many old and proud nations to a boiling point. We like our regulations, we like our welfare state, we like our extensive holidays and work life balance, and we’re not willing to budge on any of them, really. There’s too many contradictions in the system now. I’m not sure what it would take for this “will” to materialise, but I’m afraid if it does happen, it’ll come about due to some form of neo-fascism than a glorious rejuvenation of our current political order.
If the will doesn’t materialise, well, that’s exactly what civilisational collapse looks like in the historical record.
Either way, I’m not really seeing the optimistic outlook for Europe.
If the will doesn’t materialise, well, that’s exactly what civilisational collapse looks like in the historical record.
Either way, I’m not really seeing the optimistic outlook for Europe.
I suppose the truth/ideal situation would be somewhere in the middle.
But the inability to capitalise on the tech sector, difficult regulations as barrier to entry, and a lot of changing rules regarding innovation, making things “green” and environmental and consumer safety does give a high burden to industry when competing with entities like China and the USA which do not have these restrictions.
I think a long-term plan regarding regulations which are clear upfront and don’t constantly change, as well as massive tax benefits to new corporations could provide an economical boost.
Having said that, I am not an economist, so I’d love someone with more knowledge to give their 2 cents. (Tax free, of course)
But the inability to capitalise on the tech sector, difficult regulations as barrier to entry, and a lot of changing rules regarding innovation, making things “green” and environmental and consumer safety does give a high burden to industry when competing with entities like China and the USA which do not have these restrictions.
I think a long-term plan regarding regulations which are clear upfront and don’t constantly change, as well as massive tax benefits to new corporations could provide an economical boost.
Having said that, I am not an economist, so I’d love someone with more knowledge to give their 2 cents. (Tax free, of course)
It's a shame that the EU is painted as a failure unless they have low taxes and industrious go-getters trashing their system.
Their awesomeness doesn't show on a balance sheet so it might as well not exist.
Their awesomeness doesn't show on a balance sheet so it might as well not exist.
I live in EU. What awesomeness? There are places with better social and health services while having less taxes and regulations. The regulations are making actual day to day life hard for everyone, directly as well as indirectly. EU is surviving, but I definitely wouldn't - and don't know anyone who would - say it's thriving. Most of my friends who work in software and other hitech are planning their move to US.
Life expectancy? Happiness?
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2016/02/25/happines...
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2016/02/25/happines...
Try to talk to people instead of relying on some abstract numbers.
"Yeah I'm so happy I have a job paying 500 USD per month, and I am so happy my 1.5-room flat rent is just 350" is a very common thing to hear where I live. The tax rate is 35% btw.
Also, try to find newer statistics at least. 2016 was around the local maxima, everything went to shit - very noticeably - during and after covid.
"Yeah I'm so happy I have a job paying 500 USD per month, and I am so happy my 1.5-room flat rent is just 350" is a very common thing to hear where I live. The tax rate is 35% btw.
Also, try to find newer statistics at least. 2016 was around the local maxima, everything went to shit - very noticeably - during and after covid.
[deleted]
I do. Most people I talk to are doing fine. Nothing close to what you described.
In the Netherlands alone, a country with 18 million people, more than 1 million people need food stamps to survive.
I do not consider that “fine” at all.
I do not consider that “fine” at all.
Define "doing fine", please. These people think they are doing fine. If you think this is not usual, why is 15% of my state population in irrecoverable debt?
Doing fine as in they own the place they live in with their families in reasonable comfort and dignity?
If that is not fine, what is fine then?
If that is not fine, what is fine then?
So 15% of population in irrecoverable debt is fine? I don't think so. Every place has rich people and they are fine wherever they are - not really interesting or surprising.
> Try to talk to people instead of relying on some abstract numbers.
Because anecdotal evidence is better than empirically researched data? LOL
Because anecdotal evidence is better than empirically researched data? LOL
Empirically researched data would be better - if people went and read the study in detail and saw that the questions asked don't lead to the conclusion that they claim, such as this case. They read a headline or check a sheet of numbers and think they understand the world.
Since people are apparently unable to do that, talking to people is the next best thing.
Since people are apparently unable to do that, talking to people is the next best thing.
If people are unable to get the results from a study, but get confused by a headline, what makes you think they’ll be able to draw correct statistical conclusions from talking to a couple of people with inherent bias and small sample size?
People are social creatures, and if they see first hand that the world doesn't match their expectations, it might get them to think about it in more detail.
Oh boi....
My two cents are that EU needs to follow USA with aggressive protectionism to offset the regulation.
Follow? The EU has been more more protectionist for decades in everything from agriculture to cars.
If you look at the WTO’s published data, the mean tariffs in the EU are 5.0% while even now, the US is at just 3.2%.
https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/tariff_profiles_l...
If you look at the WTO’s published data, the mean tariffs in the EU are 5.0% while even now, the US is at just 3.2%.
https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/tariff_profiles_l...
No. That's normal. Getting rich and moving to a place where labour is cheap is a pretty good strategy.
[deleted]
> Probably not what the self patting EU clowns were expecting.
I don't know who you have in mind with "self petting EU clowns" but in general people are very aware of what's going on. A lot of companies have been giving this feedback for a long time.
I don't know who you have in mind with "self petting EU clowns" but in general people are very aware of what's going on. A lot of companies have been giving this feedback for a long time.
> in general people are very aware of what's going on.
But what can people do? It seems to me that the EU government can do whatever they like. Or is it like what people say about the US politics: the politicians do what voters want, and it's just that a minority of people don't like EU's policies?
But what can people do? It seems to me that the EU government can do whatever they like. Or is it like what people say about the US politics: the politicians do what voters want, and it's just that a minority of people don't like EU's policies?
> But what can people do? It seems to me that the EU government can do whatever they like
You might think the problem is the EU but in all reality all this shit comes from the national governments. And how to improve these I don't know because people vote for this nonsense.
You might think the problem is the EU but in all reality all this shit comes from the national governments. And how to improve these I don't know because people vote for this nonsense.
> I don't know who you have in mind with "self petting EU clowns"
The politicians.
> A lot of companies have been giving this feedback for a long time.
Yeah, still got ignored as the report suggests.
The politicians.
> A lot of companies have been giving this feedback for a long time.
Yeah, still got ignored as the report suggests.
And who elects those politicians? Does the median voter in the EU want high growth or rather something more like museum?
I think there's a very large amount of Europeans that either want something like a museum or they simply don't understand what the opportunity costs are for what they want. They think the economy is gonna work itself out and be good no matter what.
For example: environmental talk when your largest source of natural resources gets cut off is just going to compound together. It will result in high energy prices, which will make your industry less competitive and prices higher. Quality of life will fall as a result of this. But people will just blame it on something else (whatever happens to be the popular scapegoat the time). And this same kind of pattern repeats itself in many areas of life, where Europeans just ignore what the opportunity costs are.
For example: environmental talk when your largest source of natural resources gets cut off is just going to compound together. It will result in high energy prices, which will make your industry less competitive and prices higher. Quality of life will fall as a result of this. But people will just blame it on something else (whatever happens to be the popular scapegoat the time). And this same kind of pattern repeats itself in many areas of life, where Europeans just ignore what the opportunity costs are.
> And who elects those politicians?
For the most part other politicians. A vote of a constituent every few years means very little, you don't even know for sure who gets to be a MEP, you give a "preference". For the remaining time EU politicians do whatever they want and you are just expected to take it. And if your country doesn't want to, they give you a penalty.
For the most part other politicians. A vote of a constituent every few years means very little, you don't even know for sure who gets to be a MEP, you give a "preference". For the remaining time EU politicians do whatever they want and you are just expected to take it. And if your country doesn't want to, they give you a penalty.
And that differs how from some national systems? How can the Commission do whatever it takes when the Council is the senior part of the executive when it comes to outlining policies and countries enjoy veto rights on a variety of things there (and can even leave the EU)?
The way the EU differs from national systems in that the EU is compartmentalized. The different languages and cultures mean that ideas, information, and politics doesn't flow freely. If you care about a specific policy then not only do you have to convince all the voters in your country, but you'll have to convince people in a dozen other countries that speak entirely different languages too.
Compartmentalization like this also allows some influence to spread more than it would in a unified information space. It's possible for a larger country to convince a smaller one to side with them on an EU level issue, while "paying" for it on a national level.
I think that because of these barriers it makes sense that a lot of European voters feel entirely disconnected from EU level politics. It's preteen met with an attitude of "Brussels decided that we must jump, so we jump." It's reminiscent of the Soviet times with "Moscow decided". (Not in the decisions itself, but people's attitudes.)
Compartmentalization like this also allows some influence to spread more than it would in a unified information space. It's possible for a larger country to convince a smaller one to side with them on an EU level issue, while "paying" for it on a national level.
I think that because of these barriers it makes sense that a lot of European voters feel entirely disconnected from EU level politics. It's preteen met with an attitude of "Brussels decided that we must jump, so we jump." It's reminiscent of the Soviet times with "Moscow decided". (Not in the decisions itself, but people's attitudes.)
The EU is also not a nation but only a supranational organization, so it shares that with other such organizations.
But that aside, is that actually true for policymaking that it needs a lot of countries or for a lot things other countries don't care, i.e., small, focused minorities can enact things (not unlike most democracies)?
The Council can have a qualified majority vote - for the vote to pass 55% of the member states representing at least 65% of the EU population has to vote in favor.
The EU has a population of 450 million. 35% of it is a little over 157 million. Germany + France have a population of 149 million.
In practice every qualified majority vote has to have either Germany or France supporting the measure to pass the Council.
There are also Council votes that require unanimity. This is the so-called 'veto' that every country has. In that case obviously any country could hold up the process.
So, there are definitely places where things can be held up by a minority of countries, but I don't know if they can push things through. I think it would be more likely that they would leverage national level power for that.
The EU has a population of 450 million. 35% of it is a little over 157 million. Germany + France have a population of 149 million.
In practice every qualified majority vote has to have either Germany or France supporting the measure to pass the Council.
There are also Council votes that require unanimity. This is the so-called 'veto' that every country has. In that case obviously any country could hold up the process.
So, there are definitely places where things can be held up by a minority of countries, but I don't know if they can push things through. I think it would be more likely that they would leverage national level power for that.
Another point to consider: what happened to Telegram's CEO?
Pavel Durov was arrested because he didn't police his platform sufficiently or whatever, or so France claims.
That alone is unsettling. It's been discussed among techies on Twitter. Why would anyone smart enough to create something want to start a company in the EU?
Why risk your neck to start a startup in such an environment?
Pavel Durov was arrested because he didn't police his platform sufficiently or whatever, or so France claims.
That alone is unsettling. It's been discussed among techies on Twitter. Why would anyone smart enough to create something want to start a company in the EU?
Why risk your neck to start a startup in such an environment?
This is in addition to the world most expensive taxation (France), so assuming you can manage to be a least ramen profitable you can't expect to cash-in more than ~40-45% of the end profits in your pocket.
If your platform is a cesspool of CSAM and you loudly say you'll do nothing about it, countries not holding you accountable are the problem. None of the other large social platforms have behaved like this because they know where it ends.
There's more CSAM per capita (at least 10x likely more like 100x) on a platforms which "purports to police CSAM" like Civit.ai. No one does anything about it though.
Oh you don't believe me? This is one of the most popular models on their whole site: https://civitai.com/models/402667/age-slider-lora-or-ponyxl-...
Stable Diffusion 1.5 was trained on at least thousands of images of this stuff and no one has tried to get that model taken down, mostly because training on sufficiently large datasets almost guarantees that you'll have illegal content included within it. https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/20/24009418/generative-ai-i...
I'm also shocked for related reasons that the 3 and 4 letters haven't been more upset about LLMs, since there's almost certainly a ton of classified info just sitting on the internet that LLMs have ingested into their training data. (don't believe me? https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2024/03/26...)
Oh you don't believe me? This is one of the most popular models on their whole site: https://civitai.com/models/402667/age-slider-lora-or-ponyxl-...
Stable Diffusion 1.5 was trained on at least thousands of images of this stuff and no one has tried to get that model taken down, mostly because training on sufficiently large datasets almost guarantees that you'll have illegal content included within it. https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/20/24009418/generative-ai-i...
I'm also shocked for related reasons that the 3 and 4 letters haven't been more upset about LLMs, since there's almost certainly a ton of classified info just sitting on the internet that LLMs have ingested into their training data. (don't believe me? https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2024/03/26...)
Does every startup have to be in social media?
Take your populist desinformation and Russian propaganda somewhere else...
Telegrams CEO was arrested because the company didn't properly cooperate with law enforcement. Every democratic first-world country would have done the same.
Telegrams CEO was arrested because the company didn't properly cooperate with law enforcement. Every democratic first-world country would have done the same.
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?
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?
>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.
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.
>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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
EU pulling an IBM or Hewlett-Packard.
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.
As an American, what I've seen, and what the statistics appear to show, is mostly stagnation for the majority of the population. Any modest post-pandemic wage gains have been offset by consumer product inflation. What we experience in the United States is the continuation of a trend going back 40-50 years: disparity of wealth, concentrating at the top. Of course those at the top have experienced spectacular growth in compensation and wealth, but it hasn't really trickled down much. Everyone else is experiencing outrageous costs of housing, education, and medical care that undermine what should be a comfortable, secure middle class existence (and retirement!), given the total wealth of the nation.
This may be the wrong crowd for such a message, though.
This may be the wrong crowd for such a message, though.
What time period are you imagining that it would be better to be in the bottom half of income distribution than now?
All that wealth at the top is tied up in investments. It is moving through the economy; it is not a stockpile of gold coins hidden in a mountain.
All that wealth at the top is tied up in investments. It is moving through the economy; it is not a stockpile of gold coins hidden in a mountain.
> Everyone else is experiencing outrageous costs of housing, education, and medical care ...
This shouldn't come as a surprise.
Those three sectors you list have tremendously invasive and widespread government interference, and it has only gotten worse with time.
This government interference inherently creates various types of economic inefficiencies (such as the loss of competition, corruption, wasteful bureaucracy, diverting resources to the unproductive users, etc.) that eventually result in severe distortions throughout the entire economy.
This isn't a problem just in the US, either. It's also happening in Canada, for example, and often to a far worse degree.
Anyone who proposes more government interference as the solution to these government-created problems will inherently be making the situation worse.
This shouldn't come as a surprise.
Those three sectors you list have tremendously invasive and widespread government interference, and it has only gotten worse with time.
This government interference inherently creates various types of economic inefficiencies (such as the loss of competition, corruption, wasteful bureaucracy, diverting resources to the unproductive users, etc.) that eventually result in severe distortions throughout the entire economy.
This isn't a problem just in the US, either. It's also happening in Canada, for example, and often to a far worse degree.
Anyone who proposes more government interference as the solution to these government-created problems will inherently be making the situation worse.
I’m curious what statistics you’re looking at. If you look at media real (inflation-adjusted) earnings, they’re considerably higher than one, two or any number of decades ago, even with the cost disease that medical and schooling sectors suffer from. Not only that, but wage growth has been faster for those earning below the median income than for those earning more. Absolute poverty rates have also fallen dramatically.
From all I’ve read, it looks like Americans are doing better than ever but are less satisfied due to ever-increasing expectations. My hunch is that for the vast majority of people, social media fuels this.
From all I’ve read, it looks like Americans are doing better than ever but are less satisfied due to ever-increasing expectations. My hunch is that for the vast majority of people, social media fuels this.
> they’re considerably higher than one, two or any number of decades ago
I do not think that is correct? This actually shows stagnation for at least 2 decades in real median household income:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
I do not think that is correct? This actually shows stagnation for at least 2 decades in real median household income:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
The chart you shared shows over a 30% increase of U.S. real median household income over three decades.
First, note that this is median, not mean, so it’s not skewed by outliers. Secondly, t’s real income, which means it’s already inflation adjusted. Finally, it’s a measure of households not people. This understates the per-capita gains, since the average household size has shrunk since the 80s. Arguably, increasing prosperity is part of why people now choose to live with fewer people such as extended relatives and housemates.
First, note that this is median, not mean, so it’s not skewed by outliers. Secondly, t’s real income, which means it’s already inflation adjusted. Finally, it’s a measure of households not people. This understates the per-capita gains, since the average household size has shrunk since the 80s. Arguably, increasing prosperity is part of why people now choose to live with fewer people such as extended relatives and housemates.
The comment you're replying to is implying real median personal income (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N), not household. Household sizes change over time.
> From all I’ve read, it looks like Americans are doing better than ever but are less satisfied due to ever-increasing expectations. My hunch is that for the vast majority of people, social media fuels this.
Or maybe the numbers are heavily cherry-picked, averaged and grouped to doctor them into prosperous metrics that aren't experienced by the large portion of the population.
Or maybe the numbers are heavily cherry-picked, averaged and grouped to doctor them into prosperous metrics that aren't experienced by the large portion of the population.
Europe's most fundamental problem appears to be the energy supply, which is dominated by fossil fuel imports - Russian gas and oil, Middle Eastern & North African gas and oil, and US LNG tanker gas. This puts Europe in a bind, as the document notes:
> "Even though energy prices have fallen considerably from their peaks, EU companies still face electricity prices that are 2-3 times those in the US. Natural gas prices paid are 4-5 times higher. This price gap is primarily driven by Europe’s lack of natural resources, but also by fundamental issues with our common energy market. Market rules prevent industries and households from capturing the full benefits of clean energy in their bills. High taxes and rents captured by financial traders raise energy costs for our economy."
These costs percolate through the rest of the European economy, affecting everything from data centers to manufacturing plants to household budgets and consumer spending. The only real long-term fix will be to construct an energy system not reliant on imports from the rest of the world, and while some progress is being made, it'll take decades of focused effort (with China in the lead) to get off fossil fuels entirely, with the established and politicially influential fossil fuel investor class fighting it every step of the way, as has been the case in the United States ever since the late 1970s.
> "Even though energy prices have fallen considerably from their peaks, EU companies still face electricity prices that are 2-3 times those in the US. Natural gas prices paid are 4-5 times higher. This price gap is primarily driven by Europe’s lack of natural resources, but also by fundamental issues with our common energy market. Market rules prevent industries and households from capturing the full benefits of clean energy in their bills. High taxes and rents captured by financial traders raise energy costs for our economy."
These costs percolate through the rest of the European economy, affecting everything from data centers to manufacturing plants to household budgets and consumer spending. The only real long-term fix will be to construct an energy system not reliant on imports from the rest of the world, and while some progress is being made, it'll take decades of focused effort (with China in the lead) to get off fossil fuels entirely, with the established and politicially influential fossil fuel investor class fighting it every step of the way, as has been the case in the United States ever since the late 1970s.
We make B2B software that we sell in several EU countries, which interfaces with official systems.
Even though all countries are subject to the same EU rules, and follow the same underlying technical model, each country has its own laws and regulations, and separate implementations.
So even though our software does "the same thing" in each country, it's so different that a lot of code is per-country, over 50%.
So it's several times the job of doing it once.
However, that's the easy bit, it just takes more development time. The hard part is getting access to systems, coordinate testing and all those things which require national agencies to answer. And if they have to get an answer from some EU instance, well, it's usually blind luck if we get a response.
Just as an example, it took us over a year to get test access to a new system, because access was given centrally in EU, even though the endpoint was hosted nationally. And that was for the country where we managed to get access...
I get that US state laws differ, but from my understanding it's not nearly as different as it is between member countries in the EU.
And we're just doing B2B, which I assume is easy mode.
I just don't see how we can compete when at best you can access a fraction of the users without a nightmare of red tape and whatnot.
Even though all countries are subject to the same EU rules, and follow the same underlying technical model, each country has its own laws and regulations, and separate implementations.
So even though our software does "the same thing" in each country, it's so different that a lot of code is per-country, over 50%.
So it's several times the job of doing it once.
However, that's the easy bit, it just takes more development time. The hard part is getting access to systems, coordinate testing and all those things which require national agencies to answer. And if they have to get an answer from some EU instance, well, it's usually blind luck if we get a response.
Just as an example, it took us over a year to get test access to a new system, because access was given centrally in EU, even though the endpoint was hosted nationally. And that was for the country where we managed to get access...
I get that US state laws differ, but from my understanding it's not nearly as different as it is between member countries in the EU.
And we're just doing B2B, which I assume is easy mode.
I just don't see how we can compete when at best you can access a fraction of the users without a nightmare of red tape and whatnot.
> However, that's the easy bit, it just takes more development time.
Easy, yes, but expensive for the business and its customers. It's a silly way to do things, but it's hard to see an alternative without member states giving up massive amounts of sovereignty.
Easy, yes, but expensive for the business and its customers. It's a silly way to do things, but it's hard to see an alternative without member states giving up massive amounts of sovereignty.
Here is an example(ragebait) rule from where I am in EU. Regulation dictates that, as an employee(FT contract), if I make something on my free time even, my employer can legally claim it as their IP/property.
While there are not many examples of employers doing it, but you will notice a pattern that many tiny innovations are born when people are unemployed or self-employed ;)
While there are not many examples of employers doing it, but you will notice a pattern that many tiny innovations are born when people are unemployed or self-employed ;)
Apparently, Draghi asked Pieter Levels (@levelsio on Twitter) for some input: https://x.com/levelsio/status/1833126426142179653, pretty cool.
I'm reading the document a bit different. It is not so much about lack of competitiveness as it is about centralizing policy making and power in the EU organization, aka "all problems can be solved by giving EU institutions dictorial power over everything".
E.g. making sure all military purchases are done centrally (aka EU army).
All the text about GDP, R&D and AI is just window dressing for this goal.
---
The summary on page 2 give the reasons: 1) Lack of focus (regulatory burdens + single market not implemented fully), 2) (military) spending power not made centrally, 3) policies are too cordinated and should be set top-down instead for quicker decisions.
The details on page 11 argue: 1) energy prices too high (doesn't specify why this is important in high-tech production and if this is a problem for all the datacenters in EU, just states it as a fact) 2) "pipeline from innovation to commercialisation" doesn't work 3) reduce supply line dependency from countries outside EU.
Page 12 says it almost directly: "To move forward, Europe must act as a Union in a way it never has before". I.e. EU should no longer be a union of countries but be more like union of states, likely even less power than the states in the US.
Page 21 (and 27-30) talks about AI as a silver bullet that will magically improve car production etc.
While it talks about reducing regulatory burden, it completely overlooks how difficult it is to find out what laws applies to a given area. Lack of transparency is a huge overhead.
It also thinks that patents and revenue sharing with researches will increase innovation while completely ignoring how research is hampered by "publish or perish".
It should talk about how to get Germany to invest in better internet connections for homes and how to modernize hospitals etc so the no longer use FAX machines.
E.g. making sure all military purchases are done centrally (aka EU army).
All the text about GDP, R&D and AI is just window dressing for this goal.
---
The summary on page 2 give the reasons: 1) Lack of focus (regulatory burdens + single market not implemented fully), 2) (military) spending power not made centrally, 3) policies are too cordinated and should be set top-down instead for quicker decisions.
The details on page 11 argue: 1) energy prices too high (doesn't specify why this is important in high-tech production and if this is a problem for all the datacenters in EU, just states it as a fact) 2) "pipeline from innovation to commercialisation" doesn't work 3) reduce supply line dependency from countries outside EU.
Page 12 says it almost directly: "To move forward, Europe must act as a Union in a way it never has before". I.e. EU should no longer be a union of countries but be more like union of states, likely even less power than the states in the US.
Page 21 (and 27-30) talks about AI as a silver bullet that will magically improve car production etc.
While it talks about reducing regulatory burden, it completely overlooks how difficult it is to find out what laws applies to a given area. Lack of transparency is a huge overhead.
It also thinks that patents and revenue sharing with researches will increase innovation while completely ignoring how research is hampered by "publish or perish".
It should talk about how to get Germany to invest in better internet connections for homes and how to modernize hospitals etc so the no longer use FAX machines.
What an interesting—and I believe valid—take.
Whether this is intentional by the document's authors or not doesn't matter. The outcome is likely more undemocratic centralization of power, forcing policies people do not want under the guise of competitive efficiency.
You could say it's better than rallying people against an inexistent threat. Besides, you could also argue that Europeans do not necessarily want to be more competitive.
While the relative benefits of a large market and (relative) peace are a consensus, the rest of the European project is opaque at best and only reflects the aspirations of a few people living in a bubble.
Whether this is intentional by the document's authors or not doesn't matter. The outcome is likely more undemocratic centralization of power, forcing policies people do not want under the guise of competitive efficiency.
You could say it's better than rallying people against an inexistent threat. Besides, you could also argue that Europeans do not necessarily want to be more competitive.
While the relative benefits of a large market and (relative) peace are a consensus, the rest of the European project is opaque at best and only reflects the aspirations of a few people living in a bubble.
Yep, that's what's my takeaway from here as well. But for that you actually need to read the document not just assume whats written in it. :)
It feels like America innovates and the EU regulates.
Personally I’d like to see each do more of the other. But would that hamper the thing they’re doing better at? If America regulates more will there necessarily be less innovation?
For example, there are a number of bills in the CA legislature aimed at regulating the gen ai. I know that if CA makes these things illegal, they’ll just move to jurisdiction where it’s not.
Personally I’d like to see each do more of the other. But would that hamper the thing they’re doing better at? If America regulates more will there necessarily be less innovation?
For example, there are a number of bills in the CA legislature aimed at regulating the gen ai. I know that if CA makes these things illegal, they’ll just move to jurisdiction where it’s not.
A great deal of the innovation I've seen or read about has been pushing costs onto the public or other thefts of the commons. I see how this is a necessary feature of innovation (by definition "innovation" implies a new social contract over how a resource is used). But it is not clear this is a universal good, and the new contract often enriches a few at the expense of the many.
Good regulation defends the commons/the rights of the many.
Good innovation creates a better standard of living for the many.
Good regulation defends the commons/the rights of the many.
Good innovation creates a better standard of living for the many.
For those who want a quick reference to options we have in Europe for tech solutions:
https://european-alternatives.eu/alternatives-to
edit: updated url to be more relevant/specific.
https://european-alternatives.eu/alternatives-to
edit: updated url to be more relevant/specific.
This is an astonishing document in the sense that you rarely see frankness like this coming out of the EC. It raises strong criticisms of a number of high-profile "core" regulatory initiatives, including the GDPR, DSA, and EU AI Act. There clearly is a fight building between the Thierry Breton camp and the Mario Draghi camp.
For a taste of what is in here, see e.g., page 26 of the first document:
>Regulatory barriers constrain growth in several ways. First, complex and costly procedures across fragmented national systems discourage inventors from
filing Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), hindering young companies from leveraging the Single Market. Second, the EU’s regulatory stance towards tech companies hampers innovation: the EU now has around 100 tech-focused
lawsxi and over 270 regulators active in digital networks across all Member States. Many EU laws take a precautionary approach, dictating specific business practices ex ante to avert potential risks ex post. For example, the AI
Act imposes additional regulatory requirements on general purpose AI models that exceed a pre-defined threshold of computational power – a threshold which some state-of-the-art models already exceed. Third, digital companies are deterred from doing business across the EU via subsidiaries, as they face heterogeneous requirements, a proliferation of regulatory agencies and “gold plating” of EU legislation by national authorities. Fourth, limitations on data storing and processing create high compliance costs and hinder the creation of large, integrated data sets for training AI models. This fragmentation puts EU companies at a disadvantage relative to the US, which relies on the private sector to build vast data sets, and China, which can leverage its central institutions for data aggregation. This problem is compounded by EU competition enforcement possibly inhibiting intra-industry cooperation. Finally, multiple different national rules in public procurement generate high ongoing costs for cloud providers. 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. Young innovative tech companies may choose not to operate in the EU at all.
For a taste of what is in here, see e.g., page 26 of the first document:
>Regulatory barriers constrain growth in several ways. First, complex and costly procedures across fragmented national systems discourage inventors from
filing Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), hindering young companies from leveraging the Single Market. Second, the EU’s regulatory stance towards tech companies hampers innovation: the EU now has around 100 tech-focused
lawsxi and over 270 regulators active in digital networks across all Member States. Many EU laws take a precautionary approach, dictating specific business practices ex ante to avert potential risks ex post. For example, the AI
Act imposes additional regulatory requirements on general purpose AI models that exceed a pre-defined threshold of computational power – a threshold which some state-of-the-art models already exceed. Third, digital companies are deterred from doing business across the EU via subsidiaries, as they face heterogeneous requirements, a proliferation of regulatory agencies and “gold plating” of EU legislation by national authorities. Fourth, limitations on data storing and processing create high compliance costs and hinder the creation of large, integrated data sets for training AI models. This fragmentation puts EU companies at a disadvantage relative to the US, which relies on the private sector to build vast data sets, and China, which can leverage its central institutions for data aggregation. This problem is compounded by EU competition enforcement possibly inhibiting intra-industry cooperation. Finally, multiple different national rules in public procurement generate high ongoing costs for cloud providers. 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. Young innovative tech companies may choose not to operate in the EU at all.
> Regulatory barriers constrain growth in several ways
I fail to see why it is a bad thing. We need to curb CO2 emissions which, in some wya or another, implies consuming less energy. Limiting the growth would certainly beneficial and would allow us to transition to world where growth is less central.
I fail to see why it is a bad thing. We need to curb CO2 emissions which, in some wya or another, implies consuming less energy. Limiting the growth would certainly beneficial and would allow us to transition to world where growth is less central.
> I fail to see why it is a bad thing.
First page of the foreword:
> If Europe cannot become more productive, we will be forced to choose. We will not be able to become, at once, a leader in new technologies, a beacon of climate responsibility and an independent player on the world stage. We will not be able to finance our social model. We will have to scale back some, if not all, of our ambitions. This is an existential challenge. Europe’s fundamental values are prosperity, equity, freedom, peace and democracy in a sustainable environment. The EU exists to ensure that Europeans can always benefit from these fundamental rights. If Europe can no longer provide them to its people – or has to trade off one against the other – it will have lost its reason for being. The only way to meet this challenge is to grow and become more productive, preserving our values of equity and social inclusion. And the only way to become more productive is for Europe to radically change.
The report also discusses how to do this while limiting CO2 emissions.
First page of the foreword:
> If Europe cannot become more productive, we will be forced to choose. We will not be able to become, at once, a leader in new technologies, a beacon of climate responsibility and an independent player on the world stage. We will not be able to finance our social model. We will have to scale back some, if not all, of our ambitions. This is an existential challenge. Europe’s fundamental values are prosperity, equity, freedom, peace and democracy in a sustainable environment. The EU exists to ensure that Europeans can always benefit from these fundamental rights. If Europe can no longer provide them to its people – or has to trade off one against the other – it will have lost its reason for being. The only way to meet this challenge is to grow and become more productive, preserving our values of equity and social inclusion. And the only way to become more productive is for Europe to radically change.
The report also discusses how to do this while limiting CO2 emissions.
From your own citation:
> We will not be able to become, at once, a leader in new technologies, a beacon of climate responsibility and an independent player on the world stage.
Important words here are "at once" == simultaneously. We'll have to choose. So I choose: "beacon of climate responsibility". In particular, I don't care being a leader in new technologies. Being and independent player is something where I can understand the need to compromise on carbon emission...
> We will not be able to become, at once, a leader in new technologies, a beacon of climate responsibility and an independent player on the world stage.
Important words here are "at once" == simultaneously. We'll have to choose. So I choose: "beacon of climate responsibility". In particular, I don't care being a leader in new technologies. Being and independent player is something where I can understand the need to compromise on carbon emission...
But you're dodging one of the big tradeoffs the quote describes. If there comes a time when you have to choose between climate responsibility and funding the European social model, would you cut pensions or medical benefits for the sake of the climate? Or are you working under the implicit assumption that the European economy will remain strong enough to do both?
enjoy being the beacon of climate responsibility in your 35C homes
That isn't related at all. Please don't try to sell de-growth as some green strategy, you're only going to antagonize people.
De-growth will most likely lead to more CO2 emitted per person. Only high technology can change this.
De-growth will most likely lead to more CO2 emitted per person. Only high technology can change this.
I understand growth as more economic activity and there I fail to see how they are disconnected. I mean, the more you move stuff around, the more you produce AI generated images, the more you consume energy ??? Of course we could as well produce energy without carbon emissions but we are not there yet.
I'd be happy (honestly) to hear an example.
I'd be happy (honestly) to hear an example.
I live near 2 nuclear power plants producing practically zero CO2 compared to the energy output. We are there and have been for decades.
You're basically saying "I don't want to consider other ways to produce energy so you should stop doing all the fun stuff you do". Nobody is ever going to agree with that, and you're going to antagonize people from even trying to be environmentally conscious.
You're basically saying "I don't want to consider other ways to produce energy so you should stop doing all the fun stuff you do". Nobody is ever going to agree with that, and you're going to antagonize people from even trying to be environmentally conscious.
> Nobody is ever going to agree with that
I certainly agree with that sentence. I know I'm on a pretty radical side of the question.
I certainly agree with that sentence. I know I'm on a pretty radical side of the question.
Wouldn't AI generated images save energy?
AI generates a 10 images in 10 minutes. You pick one. A human would take hours to create one of them.
AI generates a 10 images in 10 minutes. You pick one. A human would take hours to create one of them.
Ah yeah, I have a friend who's working on an online grocery store. He generated all his images - instead of driving hundreds of kilometers for weeks to take all the pictures. Definitely a huge win for the environmentally friendly.
OK, I take it as a good counter example to what I have posted. Thanks for sharing.
That's the mindset that created the problems highlighted by the report.
Indeed.
While I’ve always counted water drop by drop, washed my hands with a tiny strip of water, I’m traveling through the Russian/Middle East and there is no such water shortage visible. Pipes leak everywhere on the street, and there is still tap water everywhere, unlike Europe where I lack pressure to wash in the mornings.
Petrol is 1.10€ a liter here, far from the 2.00€ in France. Going 500km is easy, in France it’s unaffordable for students.
I feel like I’ve been lied to. In fact, on every topic restraining growth, I’ve been lied to. The over sensitization that EU does for feel-good reasons, satisfying the soul of young adults, is leading us into a green soviet situation.
If it solved problems, I’d be all in. But it’s only reinforcing green sovietism, aka poverty for the glory of a green ideal that is never reached.
Sorry but the garbage patch in the Pacific is bigger than ever, and the rest of the world is still using air conditioning. It’s only the Europeans who are deprived.
While I’ve always counted water drop by drop, washed my hands with a tiny strip of water, I’m traveling through the Russian/Middle East and there is no such water shortage visible. Pipes leak everywhere on the street, and there is still tap water everywhere, unlike Europe where I lack pressure to wash in the mornings.
Petrol is 1.10€ a liter here, far from the 2.00€ in France. Going 500km is easy, in France it’s unaffordable for students.
I feel like I’ve been lied to. In fact, on every topic restraining growth, I’ve been lied to. The over sensitization that EU does for feel-good reasons, satisfying the soul of young adults, is leading us into a green soviet situation.
If it solved problems, I’d be all in. But it’s only reinforcing green sovietism, aka poverty for the glory of a green ideal that is never reached.
Sorry but the garbage patch in the Pacific is bigger than ever, and the rest of the world is still using air conditioning. It’s only the Europeans who are deprived.
Pretty much. It's all feel-good stuff. We cannot stop global warming unless the entire globe plays along. Individual action is completely nonsensical. Even action on a national level (in, say, Germany) hardly moves the needle and is mostly feel-good. We should focus on adaption strategies and on making renewables more appealing for developing countries. Happily, solar has incredible momentum on the latter front.
We could have growth without CO2. It's "just" a coordination problem.
Note also how all of that relates to *fragmentation* of enforcement for those regulations and not the regulation itself.
Which is kind of a disaster for at least GDPR - depending on the country, the enforcement and interpretation varies wildly and the lack of central authority is a (common) issue for these kind of directives.
Which is kind of a disaster for at least GDPR - depending on the country, the enforcement and interpretation varies wildly and the lack of central authority is a (common) issue for these kind of directives.
The report is critical of both actually (the regulations themselves as well as fragmentation in compliance and enforcement).
It is, but pretty much every single takeaway from even other points (energy, defense, etc.) comes back much strongly to the fragmentation of interpretations, enforcements and laws across the member states than the existence of regulation itself.
Of course, haters of regulation will probably ignore this part and focus on the "GDPR bad" narrative :)
Of course, haters of regulation will probably ignore this part and focus on the "GDPR bad" narrative :)
That's a strong theme, but it's not the only one. For example, there are three main points made about the GDPR in the second document:
- frequent changes in interpretation over time;
- the extra burden added by national transposition and enforcement, including local "gold-plating"/divergence; and
- the proportionally higher regulatory burden faced by SMEs and small mid-caps compared to larger companies.
The second point is squarely about fragmentation but other two touch on more core issues. Fragmentation does affect the other two, e.g., with multiple local DPAs there will be an inevitable ratcheting effect of what's required by the GDPR if an org wants to operate across the EU, but some of it is not related to fragmentation. Privacy Shield was supposed to provide a pan-EU GDPR-compliant framework but got killed, now people are saying that the EU–US Data Privacy Framework is going to get shot down too, leaving data architects in the dark on how to comply. That uncertainty is going to exist even if all the DPAs get coalesced into a pan-national entity.
- frequent changes in interpretation over time;
- the extra burden added by national transposition and enforcement, including local "gold-plating"/divergence; and
- the proportionally higher regulatory burden faced by SMEs and small mid-caps compared to larger companies.
The second point is squarely about fragmentation but other two touch on more core issues. Fragmentation does affect the other two, e.g., with multiple local DPAs there will be an inevitable ratcheting effect of what's required by the GDPR if an org wants to operate across the EU, but some of it is not related to fragmentation. Privacy Shield was supposed to provide a pan-EU GDPR-compliant framework but got killed, now people are saying that the EU–US Data Privacy Framework is going to get shot down too, leaving data architects in the dark on how to comply. That uncertainty is going to exist even if all the DPAs get coalesced into a pan-national entity.
Canada also suffers from lack of competitiveness, productivity, etc and I always wonder if we actually have the political constituency for a pro-growth agenda. I don't think we do it seems the group that would vocally back this is likely <10% of the population and probably low-engagement/apolitical. Europeans seem to give off the same vibe, if not more so.
For example the governing Liberals have been pretty bad on the economic file and will most certainly lose the election next year, but the alternatives are: 1) A Russian-propaganda fuelled Conservative party led by an obsessive culture warrior who's never known life outside politics (a 45 year old who has been an MP for 20 years) 2) a leftist party that thinks more regulation and taxes is what we need.
The "Abundance Agenda" types just don't fit in anywhere, except perhaps as a small faction of the Liberals.
For example the governing Liberals have been pretty bad on the economic file and will most certainly lose the election next year, but the alternatives are: 1) A Russian-propaganda fuelled Conservative party led by an obsessive culture warrior who's never known life outside politics (a 45 year old who has been an MP for 20 years) 2) a leftist party that thinks more regulation and taxes is what we need.
The "Abundance Agenda" types just don't fit in anywhere, except perhaps as a small faction of the Liberals.
> A Russian-propaganda fuelled Conservative party
The “russian” accusation does not hold. It never has. It’s only a big mixup of ideas that can’t withstand being explained rationally. For example: CNN said about 5600 times in 2019 that they had “definitive proof” that Trump was a Russian asset. Still no such proof has been shown in public.
I recommend to re-study whether those are really russian-fueled, or whether they are not just good ideas that you don’t like because they question your lifestyle at first sight.
The “russian” accusation does not hold. It never has. It’s only a big mixup of ideas that can’t withstand being explained rationally. For example: CNN said about 5600 times in 2019 that they had “definitive proof” that Trump was a Russian asset. Still no such proof has been shown in public.
I recommend to re-study whether those are really russian-fueled, or whether they are not just good ideas that you don’t like because they question your lifestyle at first sight.
The mainstream media and established parties have wrongly tried to portray them as "extremists" or "fringe", but the People's Party of Canada's platform is by far the most reasonable, balanced, and sensible out there:
https://www.thepeoplespartyofcanada.ca/issues
It isn't perfect (their proposed immigration rate is far too high, for example), but unlike all of the other parties, at least what they propose would generally steer Canada in a much better direction than it has been going in under the Liberals and Conservatives.
https://www.thepeoplespartyofcanada.ca/issues
It isn't perfect (their proposed immigration rate is far too high, for example), but unlike all of the other parties, at least what they propose would generally steer Canada in a much better direction than it has been going in under the Liberals and Conservatives.
> The EU is entering the first period in its recent history in which growth will not be supported by rising populations....We will have to lean more on
productivity to drive growth.
Hasn't the second part always been the case? Is there any advantage to boosting raw GDP without also increasing GDP per capita?
Hasn't the second part always been the case? Is there any advantage to boosting raw GDP without also increasing GDP per capita?
> Is there any advantage to boosting raw GDP without also increasing GDP per capita?
For EU bureaucrats there sure is: we can afford more of them and they can have higher salaries.
For EU bureaucrats there sure is: we can afford more of them and they can have higher salaries.
As for the difference in tech, especially software, I think the US has a black hole effect going on. A massive concentration of risk capital in one place that has snowballed into an enormous powerhouse. A gravitational force in particular for software companies that want to make it big.
For Europe to replicate that is as difficult/impossible as it is for the US to undo the gravitational pull of Asian manufacturing.
As for regulation, tech is grossly under-regulated in many ways. Europe is not wrong to try and regulate it, but it is true that if the US and China don't, you get left behind.
And then we can connect the dots: capital concentrates and does so in places with the fewest hurdles.
For Europe to replicate that is as difficult/impossible as it is for the US to undo the gravitational pull of Asian manufacturing.
As for regulation, tech is grossly under-regulated in many ways. Europe is not wrong to try and regulate it, but it is true that if the US and China don't, you get left behind.
And then we can connect the dots: capital concentrates and does so in places with the fewest hurdles.
Patrick Collison posted a summary of the results on Twitter in case you don't want to read the whole report: https://x.com/patrickc/status/1833127988512305352
TL;DR: "Mario Draghi's new report on EU competitiveness doesn't mince words."
TL;DR: "Mario Draghi's new report on EU competitiveness doesn't mince words."
It's also an American that cherry-picks a tiny part of a significantly more balanced report to drive their own viewpoint. As usual.
Read the actual doc.
Read the actual doc.
Is it actually balanced? With huge documents like these, the tendency is to add in artificial balance to placate various government factions, interest groups, etc. Often the document still has a preferred view that you can distill once you brush aside the filler.
Edit: just read the foreword (what would be called the “executive summary” in an American document). Seems like the Twitter thread describes that pretty well. And since the document authors know that the foreword is what most of the readers will read, that’s pretty indicative of their views.
Edit: just read the foreword (what would be called the “executive summary” in an American document). Seems like the Twitter thread describes that pretty well. And since the document authors know that the foreword is what most of the readers will read, that’s pretty indicative of their views.
Patrick Collison is from Ireland.
[deleted]
Competition is for losers, and (some?) American leaders got it in mind for a long time https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-... but we don't need to stop faking like the rules of the game are useful and fruitful in the American way.
As Europeans, we don't need Europe to compete or even out-compete other actors. We need strong will and operational effectiveness to foster social, economical, technological and ecological progresses all together.
As Europeans, we don't need Europe to compete or even out-compete other actors. We need strong will and operational effectiveness to foster social, economical, technological and ecological progresses all together.
> Europe has abruptly lost its most important supplier of energy, Russia
That's a very short and simplistic way to put it. We didn't lose Russia as a supplier. We chose to largely cut our economic ties with a nation that commits war crimes on a massive scale and that threatens the security of Ukraine and other European nations.
That's a very short and simplistic way to put it. We didn't lose Russia as a supplier. We chose to largely cut our economic ties with a nation that commits war crimes on a massive scale and that threatens the security of Ukraine and other European nations.
The end result is still the same: Europe has abruptly lost its most important supplier of energy, Russia
> To digitalise and decarbonise the economy and increase our defence capacity, [..]
> If Europe cannot become more productive, we will be forced to choose. We will not be able to become, at once, a leader in new technologies, a beacon of climate responsibility and an independent player on the world stage. We will not be able to finance our social model. We will have to scale back some, if not all, of our ambitions.
At some point you need to make sacrifices, you can't have everything. The very nature of politics is to trade-off ideals. The EU has been far too used to getting its own way on everything.
The joke is that the decarbonisation never really happened, it ended up being a "anywhere but here" policy. So all of the manufacturing prowess is lost, technology is greatly dependant on dictators wanting to destroy Europe and security sacrificed as a result. The irony is, the most energy efficient manufacturing method is not to ship materials multiple times around the planet, it's to create and manufacture close to home. Supermarkets know this best.
> The problem is not that Europe lacks ideas or ambition. We have many talented researchers and entrepreneurs filing patents. But innovation is blocked at the next stage: we are failing to translate innovation into commercialisation, and innovative companies that want to scale up in Europe are hindered at every stage by inconsistent and restrictive regulations.
It is made as difficult as possible for companies to be innovative in Europe. Speaking on behalf of a UK company that wanted to trade with Europe, they made it so difficult we gave up. Now we trade in other markets and there is far less restrictions.
> As a result, many European entrepreneurs prefer to seek financing from US venture capitalists and scale up in the US market. Between 2008 and 2021, close to 30% of the “unicorns” founded in Europe – startups that went on the be valued over USD 1 billion – relocated their headquarters abroad, with the vast majority moving to the US.
In exactly this situation now. US venture capital is offering double with less strings.
The rest of this is definitely a read for tonight. The problem is that in order to fix all of this they should have started 10 years ago.
> If Europe cannot become more productive, we will be forced to choose. We will not be able to become, at once, a leader in new technologies, a beacon of climate responsibility and an independent player on the world stage. We will not be able to finance our social model. We will have to scale back some, if not all, of our ambitions.
At some point you need to make sacrifices, you can't have everything. The very nature of politics is to trade-off ideals. The EU has been far too used to getting its own way on everything.
The joke is that the decarbonisation never really happened, it ended up being a "anywhere but here" policy. So all of the manufacturing prowess is lost, technology is greatly dependant on dictators wanting to destroy Europe and security sacrificed as a result. The irony is, the most energy efficient manufacturing method is not to ship materials multiple times around the planet, it's to create and manufacture close to home. Supermarkets know this best.
> The problem is not that Europe lacks ideas or ambition. We have many talented researchers and entrepreneurs filing patents. But innovation is blocked at the next stage: we are failing to translate innovation into commercialisation, and innovative companies that want to scale up in Europe are hindered at every stage by inconsistent and restrictive regulations.
It is made as difficult as possible for companies to be innovative in Europe. Speaking on behalf of a UK company that wanted to trade with Europe, they made it so difficult we gave up. Now we trade in other markets and there is far less restrictions.
> As a result, many European entrepreneurs prefer to seek financing from US venture capitalists and scale up in the US market. Between 2008 and 2021, close to 30% of the “unicorns” founded in Europe – startups that went on the be valued over USD 1 billion – relocated their headquarters abroad, with the vast majority moving to the US.
In exactly this situation now. US venture capital is offering double with less strings.
The rest of this is definitely a read for tonight. The problem is that in order to fix all of this they should have started 10 years ago.
tl;dr The United States and the European Union isn't even remotely comparable.
Private investment in the European Union is just a fraction of what's seen in the United States. Investment across country borders, especially in Software, is practically non-existent.
Businesses in Europe often prefer to work with local companies within their own country, so the "common market" doesn’t operate as seamlessly as it does in the US. You can't scale to as many users as you could in the US.
Hiring across country borders is still pretty rare, except when companies set up subsidiaries to tap into cheaper labor markets. Oh, and each country has it's own complicated labor code. Complicating matters further, some countries have insane job-protection law (i.e. France) making it less attractive to hire there to begin with. Contrast this with the United States where a company operating out of California can easily (or more easily) hire in Minneapolis or any other US state.
Regulations in the United States can also be quite a headache. The main difference is that in the EU, you’re dealing with multiple legislative environments, which adds another layer of complexity. It's not that the regulations themselves are so terrible, but the variety across countries makes it more complicated.
Taxes are significantly higher in the EU. For example, in Lithuania, 39.5% is deducted from your salary—this includes 20% income tax, 6.98% for mandatory health insurance, and 12.52% for social insurance and pensions. On top of that, there's a 21% value-added tax (VAT) on all purchases. So, if you earn €5,000 per month, you end up with just €2,390 to spend.
Utilities are also more expensive than in the United States. In Lithuania, I pay €0.25 per kWh for electricity. Gasoline costs €1.4 per liter, which is roughly $5.67 per gallon. For businesses, it is even worse; Lithuania is considered to be one of the cheaper countries.
Software-based products mainly took off in the United States, creating a large talent pool and a high level of maturity in the field. In contrast, in many EU countries, people either concentrated on industrial applications or only began focusing on software engineering in the past 20 years.
Private investment in the European Union is just a fraction of what's seen in the United States. Investment across country borders, especially in Software, is practically non-existent.
Businesses in Europe often prefer to work with local companies within their own country, so the "common market" doesn’t operate as seamlessly as it does in the US. You can't scale to as many users as you could in the US.
Hiring across country borders is still pretty rare, except when companies set up subsidiaries to tap into cheaper labor markets. Oh, and each country has it's own complicated labor code. Complicating matters further, some countries have insane job-protection law (i.e. France) making it less attractive to hire there to begin with. Contrast this with the United States where a company operating out of California can easily (or more easily) hire in Minneapolis or any other US state.
Regulations in the United States can also be quite a headache. The main difference is that in the EU, you’re dealing with multiple legislative environments, which adds another layer of complexity. It's not that the regulations themselves are so terrible, but the variety across countries makes it more complicated.
Taxes are significantly higher in the EU. For example, in Lithuania, 39.5% is deducted from your salary—this includes 20% income tax, 6.98% for mandatory health insurance, and 12.52% for social insurance and pensions. On top of that, there's a 21% value-added tax (VAT) on all purchases. So, if you earn €5,000 per month, you end up with just €2,390 to spend.
Utilities are also more expensive than in the United States. In Lithuania, I pay €0.25 per kWh for electricity. Gasoline costs €1.4 per liter, which is roughly $5.67 per gallon. For businesses, it is even worse; Lithuania is considered to be one of the cheaper countries.
Software-based products mainly took off in the United States, creating a large talent pool and a high level of maturity in the field. In contrast, in many EU countries, people either concentrated on industrial applications or only began focusing on software engineering in the past 20 years.
> Europe is stuck in a static industrial structure with few new companies rising up to disrupt existing industries or develop new growth engines. In fact, there is no EU company with a market capitalisation over EUR 100 billion that has been set up from scratch in the last fifty years, while all six US companies with a valuation above EUR 1 trillion have been created in this period.
> The problem is not that Europe lacks ideas or ambition. We have many talented researchers and entrepreneurs filing patents. But innovation is blocked at the next stage: we are failing to translate innovation into commercialisation, and innovative companies that want to scale up in Europe are hindered at every stage by inconsistent and restrictive regulations.
> For example, we claim to favour innovation, but we continue to add regulatory burdens onto European companies, which are especially costly for SMEs and self-defeating for those in the digital sectors. More than half of SMEs in Europe flag regulatory obstacles and the administrative burden as their greatest challenge.
Worth a read. Probably not what the self patting EU clowns were expecting. The disconnect between the introduction and the actual report is especially hilarious.