Hear me out, I have a tinfoil hat theory. What if, those requirements weren't put to help small shops making a new browser, but to guarantee the big shops who already have a browser are getting fined? *hits bong*
The EU’s relatively shrinking GDP has much more to do with their populations growing older and their population size stabilizing, and the relatively tiny amount of migration, than EU digital laws, most of which have been replicated throughout the world.
Additionally, the EU has always had weak financial markets, and the only strong financial center, the city of London, quit the EU and both the EU and the city of London have suffered because of that, with a whole bunch of LSE listed companies moving to New York (including possibly Shell, which would be devastating for London as a financial center).
The EU might point to ASML as a point of pride; but that assumes an ASML competitor wouldn't get tens of billions to compete the moment ASML is inconvenient.
I'm not buying this argument. Same how the US's economy isn't stronger because Americans have more kids because we're not talking about agrarian civilizations here where every pair of hands on the farm ads proportional labor output. In service based economies, a smart person with a wealthy VC behind him can generate the GDP growth of tens of thousands of traditional labor jobs so population growth isn't the bottleneck.
EU economy is weak not because of lack of more kids, but because they have not captured any high growth industries (specifically tech) to generate better jobs and new wealth for future generations of youth. Europe is all old wealth and in the hands of old people. Once the economy becomes a fixed pie with no growth, population growth follows suit. EU economy is weak because after 2008 they went the route of austerity while the US printed it's way out dumping cheap money on fueling economic growth.
If Europeans would hypothetically start having way more kids tomorrow, those kids would end up being even poorer having to share the same fixed pie of limited economic resources. Another argument why more kids != wealthier for Europeans, is a news I read today of another local university graduate who moved his start-up to the US, so what's the point in making more kids if they have no funds to increase the GPD here and they leave? More kids with no comparable growth in money = those kids competing with India or Bangladesh.
Question: Europe has had an open door migration policy since at least 2015 and taken millions of migrants, especially Italy and Greece. Why haven't all those migrants turned EU's or Italy or Greece's economies into a powerhouse and built US big-tech competitors here? Same question for Canada. When is that magic economic growth from population growth coming?
Answer: Because US invests more money in high growth sectors than EU and Canada combined, and because people aren't fungible cogs in a machine, that you can swap in and out and get the same economic output it's agrarian labor. Attracting the handful of the smartest people in the world with money and resources like the US did, is more important and ads more value to their economy than attracting millions of desperate unskilled laborers like EU and Canada did.
>but without people to pay for them
Yes, people to pay for them, as in billionaire VCs pay for them, not millions of poor uneducated people, those can't even pay their rent without government support let alone boost economy. They aren't gonna boost anything except Amazon fulfillment center and Door dash delivery rates.
So NO, I don't agree with you at all. EU has enough local skilled college educated people since university is free here, but it has no VC money to amplify their labor into economic output as proven how many EU's top minds choose to work for US companies. Adding even more random people to a stagnating economy just means lower wages and bargaining power with higher rents, not more wealth growth per capita. Your comment does not disprove any of this.
Like which example are you referring to? Be specific. Because you haven't provided any reproducible arguments or specific facts to support your opinion, and I gave you a real life example that disproves your hypothetical one.
>I am not an expert on Europe
You don't need to be one to argue on this, if you have other arguments that can be substantiated with proof or facts to disprove mine.
>I would like to say, though, that starting with a conclusion and working backwards from it is a really terrible way to proceed with a hypothesis.
I'm not starting from the conclusion, I just picked the best real life example at my disposal that contradicts your point and chose to narrate it from that end, but it doesn't change the start condition or the outcome, it's still the same no mater from which way you look at it.
Your first paragraph, specifically.
> Same how the US's economy isn't stronger because Americans have more kids because we're not talking about agrarian civilizations here where every pair of hands on the farm ads proportional labor output. In service based economies, a smart person with a wealthy VC behind him can generate the GDP growth of tens of thousands of traditional labor jobs so population growth isn't the bottleneck.
> You don't need to be one to argue on this, if you have other arguments that can be substantiated with proof or facts to disprove mine.
I am not arguing with you about anything, I am stating why population is an important factor in economic growth. Are you disputing that this is the case?
> I'm not starting from the conclusion
You are starting from 'the US economy is better than Europe's because Europe is stifling high tech growth' and working backwards from there. It is incredibly obvious that is what you are doing.
In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44553811 I pointed out that in the past a lot (former) successful German software were simply bought out by US-American software companies.
At some point, protections are not feasible - and the EU's "consumer and environmental" protections are apparently unfeasibly expensive in their current form to have a competitive economy. This is also self-defeating, as only in the context of a competitive economy, would these protections have any merit or be enforceable. Beggars can't be choosers.
But I disagree with your sentiment that the EU is going too far. Look at how healthy and happy the US is and how happy and healthy we are. The market, corporations and the economy are there to serve us, not to dominate us. Their existence is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Consumer and environmental protection are not a luxury, it's essential.
And surely, tariffs and trade wars have nothing to do with anything, right? It's just this damn overregulation and nothing else!!111
China would bulldoze my hometown in 2 seconds if it meant an addition 0.1 GDP. I would say that the US is between Europe and China for balancing GDP vs protecting its citizens.
It's easy to look down on others from an ivory tower in the wealthy developed west, but consider that China was dirt poor a few decades ago. What else would you have chosen? Die of poverty while protecting the environment? Same with India. They did what they had to in order to survive.
The west did that too in the industrial revolution. China had to speed run decades of industrial evolution in years. So why gaslight other countries for doing the same thing your country did a few decades earlier?
The good news for them is China recently stopped extracting rare earths on the cheap for the west. Their cities, air, water are waaay cleaner than they were just a decade ago. Chinese cities are actually livable now.
That's why the west is scrambling to find alternative sources on the cheap in other places that will let their environment be trashed, like Ukraine and Africa, since China doesn't want to be the west's easily exploitable environmental pay-piggy anymore, and good for them.
The bad news for the planet is that environmental destruction is not stopping, it's just moving away from China to other poorer places with weaker economies and militaries who are more malleable to western pressure and corporate demands.
>China would bulldoze my hometown in 2 seconds if it meant an addition 0.1 GDP.
Your western nation most likely did the same from the industrial revolution till WW2.
Do you believe there can be trades off between consumer, environmental protections, and GDP? I do.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
America doesn't give a flying fuck about it's people it puts corporations first.
Now I don't judge every nation has it's own culture.
It's a fake news that just don't take into account on currency value change (euro has lost some value between 2019 and 2024). But if you look really want to look at it this way, I have a bad news for new: USA has shrink 15% since January compared to Europe as EUR go from 1$ to 1.15$.
If we look at GDP at purchasing power parity from 2007 to 2023 we have this:
- European Union: 31,162 => 61,217, +96% (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locat...)
- USA: 48,050 => 82,769, +72% (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locat...)
Which shows a slight catching-up by the European Union over the period.
In other words, it's already been adjusted for exchange rates. If you adjust for today's USD/EUR exchange rate, you're double-adjusting it. The US dollar has dropped in the recent months, and much of that is arguably due to bad decision making by the current administration, but it hardly refutes the claim that US growth has outpaced EU growth for the few decades.