Money.

No, really - EU doesn't have the VCs and the megacorps. People laugh at EU sponsoring projects, but there is no private money to sponsor them. There are plenty of US companies with sites in the EU though, so you have people working the problems, but no branding.

Ok, just a quick question… why does Europe not have the money actual/people?

Part of the answer is debt.

The U.S. has a debt of 35Tn. The entire EU around 16Tn.

If even 10% of the debt difference was invested in tech that would have meant about $2tn more in investment in EU tech.

The amount of debt you are allowed to take and the abundance of money to invest in new projects are in direct proportion to the competitiveness of the jurisdiction, i.e. business-friendly environment.

EU is not a business-friendly environment.

Because Europeans don't take smart risks. Because they over regulate.

It's fascinating watching people circle back to this answer.

Regulation and taxation reduces incentives. Lower incentives, means lower risk-taking.

The fact this is still a lesson that needs to be debated is absurd.

I would love to know what you do for a living and whether you personally have taken any smart risks that have lead you to financial success, or whether you just like sniping on HN about school shootings and pretending to be superior.

Europeans also mostly don’t suffer from school shootings and generally don’t go bankrupt when they get cancer or just take an ambulance ride to a non-network hospital. Regulation is not all bad, besides the US has more of it than anybody else.

The vast majority of Americans don't do either of those things either.

And given what happened in Austria just a few hours back, not the best time for your comment.

There have been 11 mass shootings in the US in the last 7 days so I don't think this disgusting competition is one you're likely to win.

Nobody is claiming the US has less mass shootings. It's just pointless whataboutism in a conversation (economic strategy) that has nothing to do with it.

Regulation was the point discussed, healthcare and gun controls are two examples where there are massive qualitative and quantitative differences in regulation between EU and USA. E.g. healthcare is a matter of national security in the EU and it's a profit center for pension funds in the USA. Gun controls I'm not too familiar with, I can only see second order effects in the US in the form of an arms race between police and citizens.

No, ECONOMIC regulation was the point discussed. That has zilch to do with something like gun control.

Ah good, I thought you were trying to imply there is an equivalent problem in the EU. Which would seem to be intentionally dense of course.

The mental gymnastics here are incredible. Do you really think the regulations inhibiting tech startup creation are the same ones that protect people when they get cancer or whatever?

Yes, the US has a lot of school shootings, but does anyone think loose gun regulations are why the US is strong on tech?

Any time European economic failings are brought up it's always the same thing. "Well at least no school shootings!"

Great, Singapore has less school shootings and homeless people than anywhere in Europe by a country mile and has a soaring economy.

Eh, Singapore's efforts to nurture a thriving startup scene are met with middling success at most.

Agreed, but Singapore has only 5 million people which limits their potential in that regard.

Are you implying that Singapore is not ultra regulated?

They make Europe look like Texas.

No, you're right, Singapore is both highly regulated and successful. I just meant to highlight that the soaring economy doesn't include many high-tech startups.

> Because Europeans don't take smart risks. Because they over regulate.

If you said you can look at the state of VC funding in the US and call it anything approximating "smart risks" I don't know that I'd believe you.

No good VC investment looked like a "smart riks" to normies when it happened.

Thats hardly unique to Europeans. Look at UAV regulations in the US - regulated to death based on nothing, leading to a 5 to 10 year technology gap to China, while recreational pilots crash and burn every other week.

Most recently, due to ordoliberalism and coat-according-to-cloth morality guiding economic policy rather than money printer go brrr.

Longer term: cultural and language divisions despite attempts at creating a common market, not running the global reserve currency/military hegemony, social democracies encouraging work-life balance over cutthroat careerism, demographic issues, not getting a boost from being the only consumer economy not to be leveled in WW2, etc.

Quick questions don’t always have quick answers.

Moneywise, the US does have the good old Exorbitant Privilege to lean on.

edit: the parent has since edited out the flamebait.

Maybe, or maybe when silicon valley was busy growing exponentially Europe was still picking itself up from the mess of ww2.

Trying to blame a single reason is futile, naive and childish.

The US was out-innovating Europe a long time before WW2, we had faster, more extensive rail systems, superior high rise construction, earlier to electrification, invention of the telephone, modern manufacturing (Model T), invention of the airplane, the birth of Hollywood and modern motion pictures, the list goes on.

I think it's funny how the US, Canada, and Scotland/the UK all simultaneously claim to be the home of the telephone.

And what's the excuse for Euro's GDP being equal to the US in 2007, and now being over $10T less?

In general, the same. In particular, different.

Unlike the US, the EU does not have reserve currency privilige, so we can't print enless trillions of paper and force the rest of the world to give us their companies and goods in return for it.

I can only talk about my personal (US based) experience. This includes many US based startups,some VC startups, senior leadership in a large tech company, and a senior executive position in another large tech company. I have also worked with, and built, tech organizations in multiple EU countries, and have been involved in the technical due diligence and acquisition discussions with several EU companies. I admit that my experience is about 6 years old, as I am no longer in the tech industry, and I do not know what has changed during this time.

Money: There is more money for US startups. Investors (US and EU) want to invest in US based startups, not EU startups. US investors are willing to risk more money and take greater risk. EU startups that gain traction will attract US companies in that they provide a good way to extend their market to the EU, not as much for their innovations. Tech entrepreneurs (US or EU) want to work in the US if they can, because that is where the excitement and risk taking is and where the money can be made.

Teams: Building and managing EU tech teams is very different than US tech teams. EU teams need a lot more emotional hand holding, and EU engineers are far more salary oriented than equity oriented. It is far more difficult to motivate them to go above and beyond - the "we need to get this fix or feature in tonight so we can deploy n the morning" simply will not get done if it is already 5pm. Firing EU workers is much more difficult. There are a lot more regulations for EU teams, in order to "protect" them, and that results in the teams being more "lifestyle" teams rather than "innovation teams". EU teams get paid a lot less than their US counterparts.

Failure: Good failure is not a problem in the US, it can actually be a badge of honor. EU is very risk averse, and people avoid failure.

There are of course exceptions all around, but the weight of these observations and experiences are in favor of US teams.

This is in no way saying it is better to live in the US, there are a lot of things about the EU that are more attractive than the US, and I would probably have a better lifestyle living in Europe now that I am no longer working. But innovation and money is not one of them.