Live data from Hacker News

EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]

commission.europa.eu

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]

#31

If 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…

> These countries mostly have [...] the highest trust societies in the world, and, until recently, the moral high ground generally.

At least the German society is fragmented into lots of milieus that rather distrust each other; see for example the following German article:

> Jahrhundertaufgabe Migration: „Es gibt gar keine deutsche Gesellschaft mehr“

> https://www.focus.de/experts/sozialforscher-jahrhundertaufga...

Important excerpt:

"Ziel bleibt die deutsche Gesellschaft, aber diese deutsche Gesellschaft, wie sie lange Zeit existierte – zwar nicht homogen, aber durch gemeinsame Werte und Normen zusammengehalten – hat sich grundlegend verändert. Der technologische Fortschritt, die Globalisierung und die zunehmende Individualisierung haben diesen Rahmen, der durchaus Integrationserfolge vorweisen konnte, aufgelöst und das Große und Ganze in viele Gesellschaften zersplittern lassen.

Heute existiert keine Gesellschaft mehr, sondern zahlreiche Lebenswirklichkeiten, in der Regel Milieu genannt, nebeneinander, und jedes hat seine ureigenen Vorstellungen von einem richtigen und guten Leben. Eigene Normen, individuelle Verhaltensmuster sowie abweichende Wertevorstellungen. Das gab es vielleicht in größeren Blöcken schon immer, niemals jedoch in einer solchen Vielfalt der Unterschiedlichkeit und des Individualismus.

Bleiben wir bei den klassischen Milieus, die sich gesichert nachweisen lassen. Hedonisten, die primär Spaß und Genuss suchen, haben andere Ziele als Prekäre, bei denen es teilweise um die nächste Mahlzeit geht. Traditionelle oder Post-Materielle präferieren völlig unterschiedliche Lösungen für Probleme. Man nehme hier die Energiewende, die genannten Abschiebungen oder die Gendersprache als Stichworte. Die adaptiv-pragmatische Mitte ist viel flexibler als die alte bürgerliche Welt oder das etablierte Establishment. So setzt sich das dann fort. Ja, es gibt Schnittmengen, aber manche Milieus sind so weit voneinander entfernt, dass der Konsens immer schwieriger zu finden ist. Das ist natürlich euphemistisch. In Wahrheit steht man sich heute erbittert, fast verfeindet gegenüber, besteht auf seine Meinung und zeigt häufig nur noch wenig Kompromissbereitschaft. Ein Blick in die Wirklichkeit sollte hier genügen.

[...]

Deutschland fehlt ein einheitlicher gesellschaftlicher Rahmen, der Normen und Werte vorgibt, auf die sich alle einigen können. Historische Narrative wie das Versprechen des sozialen Aufstiegs oder das Vertrauen in staatliche Institutionen verlieren an Strahlkraft, was die gesellschaftliche Kohäsion weiter schwächt.

[...]

Das Ergebnis muss dann eine Zunahme sozialer Spannungen sein, da noch mehr Gruppen mit unterschiedlichen Werten und Normen in einer Gesellschaft koexistieren, ohne sich gegenseitig zu verstehen oder zu akzeptieren. Schon bei der deutschen Gesellschaft führt dies zu heftigen Milieukämpfen, die kaum mehr kontrollierbar sind. Man betrachte nur die aktuelle Stimmung im Lande. Wollen wir noch zahlreiche weitere abgekapselte Lebenswirklichkeiten durch Untätigkeit schaffen?"

Re: EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not so direct though. There is a huge technological factor in it. France didn't have coal. It developed tremendous nuclear capacity. From trade perspective Finland was basically an island separated by impassable ice for some part of the year. Finland developed ice breakers. Europe developed communication satellites but USA wouldn't launch them as they competed with US satellites. So Europe developed Ariane launchers.

Europe has a huge technological base and has the capability to affect its own destiny.

Re: EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]

#33
post #19

I 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…

Reducing regulations and generally “opening up” can be done largely without substantial cost outside of political will, which is costly for political parties because lobbies exist and represent single-issue voters.

Just as an example, Uber does not operate in Italy as it does in many other countries, including in Europe, because taxi drivers are historically a highly organized group/mafia that can move substantial numbers of votes. Allowing Uber to operate would, perhaps, cost votes in the short term, but it could happen without monetary cost. Instead, taking a cab in Rome is a nightmare because the taxi mafia has no interest in increasing the number of cabs on the road or opening up to competition.

There is not a single citizen who does not benefit in some way from the artificial limitation of supply (i.e., taxi drivers and their families) who agrees with the current regulations/restrictions, but for some reason (money or votes) no politician is willing to crack down hard on them.

Since it is not and will not be one of the voters' priorities, it is an issue that is talked about for a few days after a journalist has to wait 3 hours to get a cab and disappears for months until another journalist can't find a cab. A clear symptom of a political class that is corrupt, immature, or both. Incompetent, I would add to the list.

Still in Italy, reforming the cost of the Italian university could be done at a reasonable cost. However, the deep and historical connection between the university and the bureaucratic and political system makes it preferable for decision-makers to maintain a heavily nepotistic status quo that everyone says will change sooner or later, but has not changed and I don't think will change in the next 10-20 years.

Countries that bet on tourism are failing states that are busy trying to get what they can instead of creating what they might.

Re: EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]

#34
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "What does work is making it easy to do business - cutting 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, they quickly move their corporate headquarters to more tax friendly nations." I am not an insider who has any special knowledge of the motivations of companies exiting Europe, but I suspect that those comp…

It's a mixed bag. I think you're trying to refer to the Digital Markets Act indirectly at least with part of your comment. Actually, I mostly believe in this regulation. Gatekeepers are a new kind of monopoly/government. This, too, discourages innovation. The US should have a spine against these companies. I'm glad the EU is, at least, trying to. It also doesn't really affect small business. Or, indeed, helps them. I…

> I hope they can, in the end, force Apple to allow more than safari browser on iphones so PWAs can be a real thing.

You really have to respect Apple though: Despite the fact that they have approximately 30% market share in smart phones globally, and even smaller fraction of the overall browser market, they have single-handedly prevented PWAs from becoming a thing.

It’s even more amazing when you consider how Apple was not able to prevent Android-native and Windows-native apps (which have a smaller addressable market than PWAs)! Apple must have projected all their magic juju at the PWA market and forgotten to save any for native Android apps.

We know this is true because only the stupidest person could believe that users don’t like PWAs, and that PWAs simply failed on their own merits.

> This is a sign of a bad law.

Or maybe it is a sign that European businesses have normalized some really bad and abusive practices, and that the EC needs to crack down harder on consumer protections until those businesses get the message. Maybe 20% of revenue for a start? What was it that everyone likes to say about Apple? “Just follow the law”

Re: EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]

#35
I've read most of the report and the following passages stand out: "[securitisation] could also act as a substitute for lack of capital market integration by allowing banks to package loans originating in different Member States into standardised and tradeable assets that can be purchased also by non-bank investors."

sounds a lot like what went wrong in 2008 with credit default swaps but hey, the devil would be in the details.

For hacker news most relevant would be the part at the end: "The EU should also enable the use of AI-powered software and machine-processed data to lower compliance and administrative costs for SMEs. Measures should include requiring harmonised reporting templates, de minimis reporting thresholds, and centralised reporting requirements using one multilingual interface."

Yes, lets be honest here: bureaucracy and bad IT systems are responsible for a lot of bullshit jobs. Improving this would be nice.

What I also found interesting was the part that said that because in Europe pensions are not invested [a lot] in the stock market, this means that European companies have less money to put into Research and Development compared to US and UK. And that's one of the reasons why the report says the EU needs 800 billion per year to stay competetive (4,7% of GDP! Marshall plan was 2%! Not my numbers, those are also in the report).

Re: EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]

#36
post #10

800 billion euro per year and that on top of other needs like green initiatives. How are they going to finance such investments? EU banks don’t have capital and foreign borrowers will ask steep rates which will impact European borrowing costs and extinguish economic activity even more. The simple truth is Europe cannot afford such programs.

Read the report? High level: removing policy & procurement fragmentation, boosting standardisation, completing the single market, creating a capital markets union, pruning back regulation and introducing euro bonds

Re: EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not so direct though. There is a huge technological factor in it. France didn't have coal. It developed tremendous nuclear capacity. From trade perspective Finland was basically an island separated by impassable ice for some part of the year. Finland developed ice breakers. Europe developed communication satellites but USA wouldn't launch them as they competed with US satellites. So Europe developed Ariane launc…

Europe is too expensive. Your rocket example is a prime example.

Re: EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]

#38

One 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 is an achievement because it shows that the market works: That new companies can be created and blossom and grow by their own merits to become large enterprises.

By contrast, the lack of competition in Europe holds down any newcomer. The only big companies today are those that have already be big companies for many years. That is not a natural state in a competitive market… normally new companies thrive and take market share while others decline and whither away.

The fact that Europe has no new big companies just proves that old big companies are monopolizing the market and using anti-competitive tactics to keep out any newcomer. That’s bad for Europe’s consumers.

Re: EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so direct though. There is a huge technological factor in it. France didn't have coal. It developed tremendous nuclear capacity. From trade perspective Finland was basically an island separated by impassable ice for some part of the year. Finland developed ice breakers. Europe developed communication satellites but USA wouldn't launch them as they competed with US satellites. So Europe developed Ariane launc…

Europe is too expensive. Your rocket example is a prime example.

Ariane is expensive now. But that wasn't the case for decades. Everything wasn't static in the eighties or nineties and won't be from here to eternity either. American rockets were very expensive as well.

As we speak, companies like Rocket Factory Augsburg are developing cheap access to orbit.

Re: EU competitiveness: Looking ahead [pdf]

#40
post #10

800 billion euro per year and that on top of other needs like green initiatives. How are they going to finance such investments? EU banks don’t have capital and foreign borrowers will ask steep rates which will impact European borrowing costs and extinguish economic activity even more. The simple truth is Europe cannot afford such programs.

"First, integrating Europe's capital markets to better channel high household savings towards productive investments in the EU will be essential. Second, the more willing the EU is to reform itself to generate an increase in productivity, the easier it will be for the public sector to support the investment drive."

Ahuh.. so they are going to force "investment" from european households.. Read into that what you will..

Also talking about decarbonisation and militarization in the same breath.. just utter opposite ends of the spectrum.

The EU is schizophrenic at the best of times.. but this is absurdum ad nauseum

Post reply on HN