Very interesting analysis with which I totally agree except on one issue. The laissez-faire attitude toward tech regulation approach is unfortunately not enough to shake the EU ecosystem. This approach is valid for first or even second movers but given the level develpment of external players this would probably result in a worse environment in the short term (although I agree that the implementation should be possitive in the medium term). I honestly believe that things will have to get significantly worse so that the trade off for innovators improves (e.g. one could argue that one still lives better in europe than in the US)
I would argue that this goes way beyond the tech sector and the European Union. I believe that massive cuts to government regulations are the most cost-effective means to promote long-term economic growth. Best of all, it costs no money.
And we can make massive cuts in regulation in a very short time. The state of Idaho in the USA recently cut the total amount of regulations by at least 75% in just a few years. Idaho now has less than 10% the total number of regulations as the state of California.
There is no reason why the EU, the US federal government and other US state governments cannot do the same. Massive cut in energy and housing regulations are particularly needed.
i could not agree with the style and substance of andrew's eu vivisection more....giving eurotechnocrats more money and discretion is a recipe for - net zero, i'm looking at you! - 'degrowth' and despair, not entrepreneurialism, schumperterian 'creative destruction' and/or keynesian 'animal spirits'.....that said, folks who've spent time on that continent tend to come away with the sense that europe's 'elite' has mixed feelings about entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs, creative destruction and animal spirits...would love daniel ek's 'take' on this....that would be a good andrew interview...
Very interesting analysis with which I totally agree except on one issue. The laissez-faire attitude toward tech regulation approach is unfortunately not enough to shake the EU ecosystem. This approach is valid for first or even second movers but given the level develpment of external players this would probably result in a worse environment in the short term (although I agree that the implementation should be possitive in the medium term). I honestly believe that things will have to get significantly worse so that the trade off for innovators improves (e.g. one could argue that one still lives better in europe than in the US)
I would argue that this goes way beyond the tech sector and the European Union. I believe that massive cuts to government regulations are the most cost-effective means to promote long-term economic growth. Best of all, it costs no money.
And we can make massive cuts in regulation in a very short time. The state of Idaho in the USA recently cut the total amount of regulations by at least 75% in just a few years. Idaho now has less than 10% the total number of regulations as the state of California.
https://gov.idaho.gov/pressrelease/gov-little-cuts-more-red-tape-celebrates-historic-milestone-in-regulation-reform/
https://www.quantgov.org/state-regdata-definitive-edition
There is no reason why the EU, the US federal government and other US state governments cannot do the same. Massive cut in energy and housing regulations are particularly needed.
i could not agree with the style and substance of andrew's eu vivisection more....giving eurotechnocrats more money and discretion is a recipe for - net zero, i'm looking at you! - 'degrowth' and despair, not entrepreneurialism, schumperterian 'creative destruction' and/or keynesian 'animal spirits'.....that said, folks who've spent time on that continent tend to come away with the sense that europe's 'elite' has mixed feelings about entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs, creative destruction and animal spirits...would love daniel ek's 'take' on this....that would be a good andrew interview...