I think at least half of the issues in EU / EUR including UK are cultural issues rather than regulation and policy. Although these do goes hand in hand as those cultural thinking are what drives some of the regulation and policy.
EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]
11–20 of 53 posts
Re: EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]
#12Did McKinsey write this? > Quantum computing is poised to be the next major innovation, but five of the top ten tech companies globally in terms of quantum investment are based in the US and four in China. None are based in the EU.
This is how it works when research is carried out in public institutions.
Re: EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]
#13One point that stands out > 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
Why would that be an achievement? On contrary it should be seen as an achievement and enabler for competition that this is not the case. Ie. Monopolistic behavior.
It would be an achievement as the EU is not an isolated planet. For the prosperity of EU it needs to compete in external markets. If EU has no big companies but US/China do EU will be less and less competitive in global markets. Certain things require big companies to be possible with efficiency (e.g you can't have Airbus as a collection of small companies and certainly would not have been competitive with Boeing).
Re: EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]
#14One point that stands out > 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
Those poxy anti monopoly laws seem to be working.
Monopoly laws are one thing, not being able to create new products is another. Sure Europe need not become a carbon copy of USA/China, but they need to ensure they can keep creating valuable products so their current way of life may sustain. I will encourage everyone to read the pdf as it highlights the concerns.
Re: EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would that be an achievement? On contrary it should be seen as an achievement and enabler for competition that this is not the case. Ie. Monopolistic behavior.
It would be an achievement as the EU is not an isolated planet. For the prosperity of EU it needs to compete in external markets. If EU has no big companies but US/China do EU will be less and less competitive in global markets. Certain things require big companies to be possible with efficiency (e.g you can't have Airbus as a collection of small companies and certainly would not have been competitive with Boeing).
Funny you mention airbus and Boeing.
Anyhow, you are right, and that is the infamous downwards spiral and lack of sovereignty to the market.
Either we see increased protectionism, increased inequality, or we pull our selves together and make a plain global playing field (eg. Through minimum taxation schemes).
Re: EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]
#16One point that stands out > 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
Why would that be an achievement? On contrary it should be seen as an achievement and enabler for competition that this is not the case. Ie. Monopolistic behavior.
I would rather we had the US situation where the market was dominated by new publicly traded companies, instead of companies, some of them not even publicly traded, all of which founded many decades, if not centuries ago.
It is actually one of our biggest issues that not only is the population physically old, but everything we do is done in such an old fashioned way.
As bad as Google and Facebook may be, they are publicly traded, transparent, their existence gives the US a very good geopolitical asset, their creation lifted a lot of people into out of the middle class into the upper class.
We really cannot say the same about any EU corporation.
Re: EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would that be an achievement? On contrary it should be seen as an achievement and enabler for competition that this is not the case. Ie. Monopolistic behavior.
I would rather we had the US situation where the market was dominated by new publicly traded companies, instead of companies, some of them not even publicly traded, all of which founded many decades, if not centuries ago. It is actually one of our biggest issues that not only is the population physically old, but everything we do is done in such an old fashioned way. As bad as Google and Facebook may be, they are pub…
That is an absurd dichotomy to setup and plain (bad) rhetorics. No, I would not want either.
I want a market where participants are appraised based on the value they provide to the society.
Re: EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be an achievement as the EU is not an isolated planet. For the prosperity of EU it needs to compete in external markets. If EU has no big companies but US/China do EU will be less and less competitive in global markets. Certain things require big companies to be possible with efficiency (e.g you can't have Airbus as a collection of small companies and certainly would not have been competitive with Boeing).
Funny you mention airbus and Boeing. Anyhow, you are right, and that is the infamous downwards spiral and lack of sovereignty to the market. Either we see increased protectionism, increased inequality, or we pull our selves together and make a plain global playing field (eg. Through minimum taxation schemes).
Sadly Europe is not at a point where it can utilize increased protectionism to save itself. Europe has far too few natural resources and needs a far higher standard of living, necessitating importing a lot of stuff. Unless it can maintain technological edge in some products, Europe is doomed to lose it's current standard of living.
Re: EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]
#19I think this is Draghi's report. The proposals are already outdated of course, Europe is way behind and unable to play catch up. What i find is funny that it proposes new committees to reduce regulation. And new funding for pie-in-the-sky projects, as if we don't have various research funding schemes that have spurred the creation of thousands of research grant mills across the EU.
Draghi's 'whatever it takes' turned europe to a heaven for bankers, and everyone else has since left. It's increasingly turning to a tourist destination, and that's not something to celebrate [evidenced by the high demand for tourist workers , the highest of all]
Re: EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]
#20If there was one group to look to for the future of human development, it would western Europe. These countries mostly have a terrific quality of life, the highest trust societies in the world, and, until recently, the moral high ground generally.
It's a shame, then, that they are unable to make attractive economic rules, and organize in a way that can sustain them.
Specifically as it pertains to EU economic planning, they have a fundamentally bad philosophy for encouraging business.
In most EU countries, they try to encourage innovation largely through grants and subsidies. In other words, they try to pick winners.
Instead, they should do what works: cut bureaucracy and tax breaks. No one wants the headache of starting a business here. And the few that do, against all odds, get something off the ground, quickly move their corporate headquarters to more tax friendly nations.
Denmark, Switzerland, Estonia, and Ireland have all been more successful in encouraging new innovation and also happen to have the most attractive tax breaks for innovative businesses and some of the easiest business rules. They, too could do more here. But it is obvious what works and what doesn't.
Grants and subsidies cannot make innovation. Picking winners never does that.