Not really much of a consolation, but it's pretty obvious that the standing committee is perfectly happy to sit back and chuckle while watching the rest of the world burn from that nice safe distance. So at least there won't be any china-taiwan issues.
But that's little consolation I understand. I get that when there are two elephants sitting on you, someone telling you how fortunate you are to not have a third one on top of you as well, is a little annoying.
The brainless policies continue as we speak: traditional parties keep you exposed to financial masters because money talks, and extremists keep you exposed to their masters because, again, money talks. So: money talks and Europe is still a good milking cow.
It more due to the fact that the politicians are on a moral kow-it-all high horse than being pragmatic and putting national interest first. As an example all EU leaders absolutely refused to talk with Russia/Putin on putting an end to the war and they were hell bent on militarily defeating Russia. I remember the previous German Chancellor had a phone call with Putin to discuss it and everyone was shitting on him for doing that.
But now Trump is inviting Putin to G20 and I'm sure sure all those EU politician would be all smily and act like no war is going on and gladly talk with Putin. If you think about it the war could have ended years ago and all the Ukranian/Russian lives lost could have been avoided if EU leaders were not so arrogant.
Europe has 15x the GDP of Russia. If they were "hell bent" on militarily defeating Russia, they could have made even tiny sacrifices to the social welfare system, diverted industrial production to military aid, and drowned Ukraine in help. That was a very achievable goal, and they didn't do it.
Instead, the vacillated on importing US natural gas, continued shutting down nuclear power plants, and paid Russia MORE CASH FOR OIL than they ended up giving Ukraine in military aid! They did not in fact, dedicate themselves to this war in any way shape or form.
Europe has been stepping up a lot recently, given Trump's reluctance to push back against Putin - looks at UK/France supply of missile and anti-missile systems and IP to Ukraine, stepped up air defense based out of Lithuania (anticipating Kaliningrad as the first front of the war), etc.
> Europe is of course well aware that war with Russia seems increasingly inevitable, and have been preparing for it
What is the source for this? I have seen some news articles with this narrative, it was more on the line of fear-mongering rather than providing evidence.
Ukraine is only Putin's first step, and Europe is well aware of that, so look at all the advanced weapons systems Europe is now giving to Ukraine (Storm Shadow, SCALP, SAMP/T etc), as well as the statements they are making. They are well aware this has made them a target for Putin, with UK missiles having been used against Black Sea targets etc, but are doing it all the same.
Europe is not tolerating Russian drone incursions, and has been shooting them down, have been on air combat footing patrolling the finish border and Kalinograd region (operating out of Lithuania), boosting defense of the Suwałki Gap, etc.
YouTube is perhaps one of the best sources of information, since US MSM is not interested.
> If you think about it the war could have ended years ago and all the Ukranian/Russian lives lost could have been avoided if EU leaders were not so arrogant.
How exactly is Europe to blame for Russia continuing its war in Ukraine? Russia has clearly demonstrated a lack of interest in peace on any terms that could be acceptable to Ukraine.
the geopolitical takes on this website are something else man. I would say don't bother, but letting this type of rhetoric go would also be unfortunate
Yeah, there are a lot of similar bad takes everywhere, not just on this website. This particular one seems to be reasonably common in finance type spaces. I think it presuposes a "correct" outcome to the war and then just tries to take shortcuts to that outcome despite that outcome not being desireable for the parties that get a vote. Its especially frustrating when it ignores the instability of the outcome, which is true in this case. After all both sides have already demonstrated a willingness to fight to try to change the outcome.
> But now Trump is inviting Putin to G20 and I'm sure sure all those EU politician would be all smily and act like no war is going on and gladly talk with Putin
Putin is deathly afraid of being assassinated and is avoiding air travel in favor of trains, has identical office to film in at multiple locations to hide his location. There is no chance he is getting on a plane to Florida.
> If you think about it the war could have ended years ago and all the Ukranian/Russian lives lost could have been avoided if EU leaders were not so arrogant.
How so? By Europe rolling over and not supporting Ukraine?
Get out of Belgium, then - if it was you and your people.
There are clear ideological, decadent faults in the eu administration. They are responsible for the destruction of one of the main continental industries, transferring (even reduced) pollution to Africa, where decent old cars go (with again no effect on global warming), and transferring the enterprise to China.
China perhaps... but US? really? personally I can't think of any single person who grew up (like me) in Europe and would choose US as a destination.
From my point of view is as awful as it can get: stark inequality, literally hundreds of thousands of homeless people roaming, no basic health care, but to be honest just the number of guns pro capita is enough to keep me and most of other Europeans away for good, it's just insane for what we're accustomed to. And I'm not even referring to the dystopian situation worsened daily by the current administration.
Unless you're the kind of person who confuses absolute numbers (e.g. money you can spend per month) for actual wealth / quality of life / freedoms / rights protection / etc. Then perhaps USA is the right place, I guess?
FWIW, FEANTSA estimated over 1.2MM homeless in Europe in their most recent report[1]. That's over a population of 515MM so ~23 per 10k population. Us 746k homeless is roughly 22 per 10k population. I suspect that differences in methodology will overwhelm that 1/10k difference, but the order of magnitude seems similar.
1/3 of the US homeless are unsheltered ("Living Rough" in the FEANTSA terminology). A quick skim of the FEANTSA report did not show any countries breaking out their rough-sleepers from the rest of the data. I do suspect that this number is higher than in the EU.
Perhaps in USA is very much unevenly distributed? I visted a couple of big cities in California and the situation is abysmal, I don't know of any place in Europe even close to that, still have to see campings in the middle of a big city. I could't see the same in other cities I visited, e.g. Las Vegas and Miami.
The numbers seem to say it's the same in theory, in practice my experience is that it very much doesn't _feel_ the same.
> still have to see campings in the middle of a big city
I saw that in London, in Rome and afair in Berlin
Not to the same extend as camping villages in LA but still.
But I also didn't go that much inside those bad parts of cities in Europe, in US I drove through them
Brussels too. There's some US cities that seem to be exceptionally bad, in a league of their own, but that's probably still a small fraction of all the homeless.
It's actually the extent which is the measure here. I don't think a population with 0% homelessness ever existed nor is even possible, it is just endemic to human societies, like e.g. nomadism is.
More in general, the feel you get as an European visiting the US is that either you're in, or completly out of the society. There's not much of a grey area, more like a quantum leap.
If we were to take all preceding arguments seriously, couldn't that be explained by americans going to live in a low-cost-of-living country once they've earned their living?
(Don't know your country to know if that's true or not, but it's a possibility)
Emigrating is super easy when you have a lot of money and a strong passport. Money solves most problems that are not related to the soul.
By comparison, try emigrating as a poor person from a poor country with a weak passport. Americans are playing life on easy mode but they complain the most.
It's actually the other way around. All we have is money that we stole from the colonies.
If the car companies actually go down the drain I have no clue what products of note we would still be producing that would continue to bring money in. So, I think our goose is cooked here in Europe.
* Orthopaedic Knee Implants (75% of Global Supply)
* Acute Hospital Ventilators (50% of Global Supply)
* Contact Lenses (World Leader)
19 of the world's top 20 pharmaceutical companies operate manufacturing, R&D, or biopharma facilities in Ireland; this compromises over 50% of all physical goods exported from Ireland, totaling well over €100 billion annually. Needless to say it's also the pivotal manufacturing hub for high-demand GLP-1 weight-loss and diabetes treatments (like Mounjaro).
Ireland is among the top global exporters of antisera, blood fractions, and complex cell cultures, making it indispensable to global healthcare infrastructure.
Ireland is the absolute world leader in dairy science per capita, and produces roughly 10% to 15% of the entire world's infant milk formula, with estimates indicating that roughly one in ten to one in seven babies globally consume formula manufactured in the country.
That's an Island of less than 5 million people, 1/8th the size of Texas, that was basically bypassed by the Industrial Revolution and had no colonial benefit. Now extrapolate for a second and imagine what Germany is manufacturing.
I'm referring to the countries borders consisting of sea, not neighbouring countries. More to the point, all industries I'm referring to were established prior under the constraints of the stated population.
The population of the 26 counties only hit 5 million in 2021, in the midst of lockdown. It then surged massively with global instability, with a 2.2 per cent increase in 2022 alone with the first round of Ukrainian refugees forming the majority of the 117,000 added to the population count.
The average salary (not including RSUs/Bonus) in Dublin's Silcon Docklands is north of €130k+, with sick pay, 23 days leave, and the sort of employee protections which would be an utter fantasy in the US (defined redundancy payments, mandated collective bargaining, governance processes around mass redundancy handling at state level).
This was hugely evident during the recent spate of tech layoffs - employers planning collective dismissals are obliged to hold a mandatory 30-day consultation with employee representatives and notify the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment beforehand. Issuing premature "done deal" announcements before meaningful consultation breaches Irish law.
Even at the micro level, non-collective or individual restructuring must still rely on objective selection criteria and fair procedures. Failing to do so exposes employers to Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) claims for unfair or constructive dismissal.
There's also very very strict regulations around work/life issues. A famous case this year in 2023 where a Customer Care Team Lead at the Dublin office of Israeli software company Wix was dismissed after posting comments on LinkedIn. In her posts, she described Israel as a "terrorist state" and referred to Zionism as "the root of violence" while expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people. In July 2024, the WRC ordered Wix to pay Carey €35,000 in compensation after Wix acknowledged that the dismissal was "procedurally unfair" under Irish employment law.
In short, we're not that poor and have significant societal safety-nets that make up the delta in direct wages.
> employee protections which would be an utter fantasy in the US (defined redundancy payments, mandated collective bargaining, governance processes around mass redundancy handling at state level).
This can be compared to protectionist policies such as tariffs.
If employees are hard to fire, then companies hesitate to hire them.
If employees on-shore are protected, then un-protected employees overseas are more competitive, eventually gutting local industries.
Etc.
This came up in Australia recently where a liberal government proposed loosening some employee protection laws with the idea that it would encourage hiring.
It did. It worked.
Then the policy was swiftly reversed by a more left-wing party, and a lot of those newly employed people lost their jobs because they turned from an asset to a liability.
What is perhaps more important from ASML's standpoint is that none of the ongoing fab projects in Europe are leading-edge fabs set to use EUV and eventually High-NA EUV lithography scanners. The tools that European fabs use today and that new facilities are set to use in the future are mature tools that cost considerably less than advanced EUV or immersion DUV scanners. This is perhaps a concern for ASML, as the company is naturally interested in selling its more sophisticated and expensive equipment.
Missing from article is where they are selling which I assume is mostly Taiwan and America.
Europe is mostly interested in supporting its car industry. But soon they won't have to worry about that either.
There are no companies in Europe designing high-end semiconductors because the wages are much lower than in the U.S. The best European talent is moving Stateside and raking in ten times what they can get at home without having to build up seniority first.
I can't imagine it is cheap to get EUV machines these days. Maybe they don't want to get into a bidding war with America and Taiwan and are waiting for things to cool down?
Semiconductor fabs involve a lot of hazardous chemicals, process changes and high energy consumption. Exactly the kind of thing European regulations tend to deter or slow down. Which is somewhat fine if there is nowhere else to build it, but if other places are easier, well...
Just to address this separately: there is effectively energy rationing in several European countries, where the government intervenes to prioritize who should receive energy first (e.g., the Netherlands and Denmark).
I get the feeling you're suggesting it's due to government regulation or 'socialist' policies.
But no, this failure is due a mixture or privatisation and politicians looking no further than the next election, leading to structural underinvestment.
Oh, and the energy transition going faster than even the most forward looking scenarios anticipated.
Going faster... until now. It's screetching to a halt. And they want us to get off gas in a few years while also being unable to handle the electrical load. I'm gonna buy a gas boiler thank you very much.
AFAIK the problem in NL is due to chronic underinvestment in the grid infrastructure since the big privatisation wave. Combined with the heavy subsidy of industry causing the issues.
Solvable but we need to be much smarter and redirect the fossil subsidies to reducing risk for grid-scale batteries and adding more grid capacity.
In most areas it made things worse. One could argue that the only exception are ISPs/cellular operators. But for public transport, healthcare, energy, etc. I can't say it was an improvement.
But yeah, we have one party that is most often in government that just loves privatisation, taxing workers more and the rich less, etc. and engages in a lot of short-term thinking. Apropos short-term thinking, one of them was a prime minister for 14 years and cut defense spending and did not even consider increasing spending when Russia invaded Crimea. And now he is the secretary general of NATO. Talking about failing upwards. Though he is probably primarily chosen for being able to communicate with Trump.
There's a possibility that the postal and telecoms systems did but I can't give you a counter. For everything else it has not been particularly effective; but a lot depends on what is privatised and how it's actually ran.
Water. Energy. Public transport (which is partially privatised). Healthcare has been a disaster.
Same thing for the UK but the results there were much much worse, especially the water (Brexit made it 10x worse). It was driven by the actions of the Unions in the 1970s (where they were taking the mickey) but of course went way way way too far. What was needed was to tweak the system such that the unions couldn't blackmail the Labour governments. Not to break it all up and sell it off for pennies on the dollar.
We can’t let industry be built, because the power infrastructure is so shabby, because the state can’t afford to improve it, because the economy is in tatters, because there is no industry, because we can’t let industry be built
This is some ridiculous speculation, we do plenty of such critical manufacturing in EU. Regulations is not why we don't make highly-integrated chips here.
No, humanity needs to actively (actively) rediscover human Values, to correct the proportion in the run towards technological growth vs Human growth - condition that has been noted for centuries and it substantially amounts to giving power to monkeys.
This does not counter that an idle, decadent mentality will have curbed growth everywhere.
Lately specifically because of Intel having financial issues, they already started building their fabs in Dresden and Wrocław when they cancelled last minute.
This was strategically planned with EU as part of bringing back production locally, similar to CHIPS Act in the US.
What is so energy consuming around fabs? The light source? I always thought of these as high-precision, not-too-high-volume processes and would have expected energy requirements to be lower than e.g. a car factory (or similar to e.g. a mall) and completely negligible on a national grid scale or compared to something like a smelter or lignite mine.
Why suffer worse bureaucracy than you absolutely have to? As long as there are no trade barriers companies will go where circumstances are the most favorable. What's the argument in favor of settling in Europe?
And what's so special about 200 MW? Many factories in Europe use these amounts and they run their own power plants. The only edge here is that the US has cheaper fossil fuels, which it amounts to.
> Finally, and here is where Europe really really suffers, generally you need these things to be planned, approved and built within a year.
Like the offshore wind farms in the US? I think Europe and China are building these things much faster. ;)
There are plenty of locations with redundant power supply, and even building a new power line from another substation would generally not be too expensive given the short distances (unless NIMBYs block it, which they do).
They have hundreds of machines that use microwaves, turbo molecular pumps, idk what else? I'd say it's just the sheer density of equipment within. An average fab has 2000 tools aka machines for wafers alone
Large shopping malls would fail the air purity requirements for semiconductor manufacturing.
EUV lithography and etching rooms require ISO class 1 clean rooms. Those can have a maximum of 10 particles of size 0.1 microns per cubic meter.
While a shopping mall can get away with 2 - 4 air changes per hour, an ISO class 1 clean room requires 400-600 an hour, or about 10 a minute. Airflow needs to also be controlled: vertical and laminar. Every human entering the cleanroom needs to undergo an air shower with speeds of 60-90 mph to shear off loose skin flakes, hair and lint. This area needs to maintain constant positive air pressure to repel outside dust as humans move in and out.
In the EUV lithography systems, temperature control is measured in milliKelvins (0.001 C). If a wafer stage has a temperature variation of 0.05 C, the silicon expands by a few nanometers and the multimillion dollar batch is toast. Meanwhile in the same room, the EUV machine is generating extreme ultraviolet light using a plasma light source that gets to above 200,000 C. That's 40x hotter than the surface of the sun.
> I always thought of these as high-precision, not-too-high-volume processes
EUV rooms are churning out about 150 wafers an hour, 24/7. That sounds like not too high of a volume, but each wafer is about 500 cpus. So 75,000 cpus an hour.
Vacuum does not dissipate heat well (extra engineering in that department)
Vacuum is never 100% vacuum. If you have some dust in the air, it will mostly flow to the direction of the airflow, but in vacuum dust particles will do random walk thing and settle on surfaces.
Plus the fact that then you need the everything to be structurally strong to be able to support 1atm of pressure differential, keep the vacuum sealed, and keep material degassing under control, so you end up with some heavy duty, expensive stuff. Pretty sure a lot of steps in the chip fab are done under very very high vaccums tho!
In general it's easier to control the air you're blowing into a room than what you're extracting, so I'd expect it would be more economical to keep the fabrication rooms under high pressure than low pressure. Also, in case of a leak, air and contaminants will flow out of the room instead of into it.
I worked a lot with and built up ultra-high vacuum systems during my PhD. At least for that level of vacuum, you introduce a lot of headache.
You can't use normal plastic or any kind of lubricant anymore because it starts degasing inside the vacuum, pump down after opening to air is a multi-day process that involves heating everything up to 150°C to get rid of the water that will settle on basically every surface when you pull the vacuum, every electricity feedthrough is a potential point of failure, transfering objects between different stages is a huge hassle etc. pp.
I'm sure there's still lots of UHV and HV systems in a chip fab, but there's no way that's easier on a full factory scale than clean room operation.
Exactly this. The process is super complex and expensive. The result, a cpu, is sold for a few dollars. To be profitable, the scale / volume has to be absolutely massive!
If something needs to be done, then these rules are a bit pointless if corporation can just do it in another country. It means the EU simply assists in poisoning poorer countries. If they were serious, then they would have banned chips made using those processes altogether. If they cannot do that, then that regulation is pointless virtue signalling.
Life cycle of the fab is 3-5 years, an opimistic estimate of slow down in europe due to all the paper work is 2-3 years, so then you would rather not build the plant.
The problem is that constructing a cutting-edge fab is stupidly expensive, and you can only pay for it by selling chips at quite a premium - and nobody is paying a premium for 5-year-old CPUs.
So that brand-new fab has to pay for itself within the first 3-5 years, or it'll simply never pay for itself. But indeed, once it has paid off its initial construction costs it'll happily keep running for another 10+ years, churning out pure profit.
An additional problem here is that the costs have been rapidly increasing as the nodes have gotten more advanced. The tech for something like, say, the 40nm node is now mature enough that building new fabs isn't too expensive, so there's a decent market for building new ancient fabs for cheap mass production. But with EUV everything has gotten so complicated that there's no reasonable way to make it cheaper as it matures, and scale-wise you're well into the diminishing returns for everything which isn't logic. It is very much doubtful whether building brand-new 7nm-and-smaller fabs for mass production will ever make economic sense.
CPUs and GPUs a node or two old aren't really cheap compared to the cutting edge, though. If the fab's selling price has dropped a ton, are Intel and Amd and nVidia all making an extra big profit on the older models they're still selling?
There is a whole niche in semiconductor called abatement which usually involves burning fluorine based gases used for etching, in order to make them less hazardous before releasing them into the environment. They use natural gas for combustion. The chemicals are not liquids anymore just gases because they are easier to control and manipulate with plasma via e.g. dry etching, CVD, ion implant
We have a politician putting up very obviously hand drawn (because we need to be fucking certain that AI didn't do it right?) posters for an anti-datacenter meeting. I'm pretty sure that if you were to talk to the actual humans in our society they'd talk about housing, employment, public transport. Not datacenters. If datacenters even feature in their real world outcomes it's 3rd hand, but the usual lefty crowd will turn up to any vaguely lefty protests with their bizarre mix of rainbow flags and keffiyehs.
> Another concern is that even advanced silicon produced in Ireland or at ESMC is then shipped to other regions for packaging, meaning that European companies have largely lost their ability to produce sophisticated chips entirely in Europe. In turn, this means that, for now, there is hardly any strategic point for European authorities to create demand for chips that are 'Made in Europe' because they are either not assembled in Europe, not produced in Europe, or not developed in Europe. We have no idea whether this is eventually going to change, but there are currently no signs that it will.
This is just such a dire situation to be in. Even USA has seen the writing on the wall regarding China-Taiwan which is why it has been strategically re-homing all the most advanced chip fab technology to Arizona [1].
This was a major flaw that I and others brought up a couple years ago when the EU was consulting industry about making its own CHIPS Act.
While bleeding edge backend processes got the bulk of reporting, the major push for the American CHIPS Act was the rebuild packaging capacity in the US (Samsung is working on this in Texas).
This was also the same approach Taiwan, Malaysia, and China used to climb up the semiconductor value chain.
The EU also failed to tie design capacity together as well, as semiconductor design capacity is almost nonexistent in Europe.
There's certainly semiconductor design capacity in Europe, but it's mostly geared towards low-end semiconductors, like the ones used in automotive and industrial. NXP and ST are designing ICs in Europe but relatively commodity stuff like low-end MCUs and motor controllers.
They can create demand for "Made in Europe" semiconductors that aren't packaged there, and then they can create demand for "Made in Europe" semiconductors that are packaged there and try to get a packaging plant to open up.
If you have a two step problem, the strategy of "I can't do two things at the same time so I'll just give up", is not a good one.
It seems to be "dump on Europe" day which I'm sure is popular but lets just stop for a second and ask what the sales of ASML machinery to the US would be without the CHIPS act .... a massive subsidy. Aren't subsidies supposed to be a bad European thing??? I'm confused. Are we free market proponents or planned economy proponents?
All nations have tariffs and subsidies, we need to move beyond restating these basic facts like "Governments exist to impose taxes and provide subsidies" but move to analyzing how effective they are at promoting industrial policy.
With Europe, I have no idea what they aim to achieve. They are losing their auto industry. Energy is so expensive they are losing their chemical and metallurgy industries. They are not moving to tech. They are not, as far as I know, investing heavily in any area at all other than spending money on stuff made elsewhere.
It's rhetorical because I see that complaint about the EU too often and I just want to point out what you have said but in my case I'm ridiculing the moralising lecture about the dire consequences of anti-free-market behaviour.
Europe is continually complaining about its dependency on Chinese steel, cars, electronics and semiconductors yet their carmakers are buying cheap Chinese steel instead of European steel and European semiconductor manufacturers are preferring cheap Chinese semiconductor equipment over ASML gear.
The European Commission wanted to put hefty tariffs on dumped Chinese steel but the carmakers sought an exemption. They don't care about European sovereignty, only about their profits. Penny wise and pound foolish. I doubt there will still be a European car industry in two decades or so.
> Europe is continually complaining about its dependency on Chinese steel, cars, electronics and semiconductors yet their carmakers are buying cheap Chinese steel instead of European steel and European semiconductor manufacturers are preferring cheap Chinese semiconductor equipment over ASML gear.
You clearly have no idea about the value creation chain. Steel is a commodity, why shoot yourself into the foot by buying expensive one. And semiconductors are not commodities.
But I guess this logic only makes sense to a country that insists on using its own overpriced steel to save a couple jobs.
How are you gonna fight a war when you can't make the steel for your bullets and artillery grenades? Yes, that's the scary logic we need to take into account these days.
Steel is not a commodity, it's a basic ingredient in any industrial base.
With all the regulations nobody in their right mind would build a fab in Europe.
Europe is increasingly relying on the rest of the world to supply it with critical things. It’s FAFOed with regulations that have driven these things elsewhere and now is heading into a “FO” world of hurt as the tables are turned and they desperately need things and have to pay the price. This will likely define the next 20 years in Europe.
Europe, like the US, is rich because it outsources lower-value production and focuses on higher value targets.
Chip production is not nearly as high in value as all the things you can build with those chips.
Local production is about supply chain security, not profit. Europe doesn’t mind one bit paying for chips produced somewhere else, but it does mind a world order where global trade is unreliable.
If we did mind a world were global trade was unreliable we have a military to match that concern, but we don't. The Houthi close the red sea for years and we can't do anything about it. Iran, attacked by the US, retaliates against us by closing the strait of Hormutz and we sit in the monitoring chair.
Don’t buy too much into the propaganda. Back when the US was a reliable partner that still understood how much it was gaining from global trade, it would have been idiotic to focus on building European military capability.
The thing that seems to have changed is that both the US and Russia are determined to destroy their own future.
Hopefully for RAM and RISC-V ultra-performant µarchitectures.
Yeah, I am advocating for I would like to happen (hopefully INTEL and AMD will put a RISC-V decodecs on their µarchitecture out of good will... yeah since they hold the x86 and x86_64 IP then excluding all alternatives de-facto... the incentive is.. negative.
If I am not mistaken, EU is currently pouring money in defence. For defence needs, one state-of-art chip build line is enough... the EU armies could even share it.
What do Europeans think of the European economy? From my American perspective it looks like they are trying to lose, trying to fall backwards, trying to become a less prosperous society. No one seems to be building anything, and the governments seem to be preventing anyone who tries to advance from doing so. What am I missing?
They're referring to the idea that a particular Toyota pickup (Hilux) has become oddly popular for any group with the means and motive to bolt a machine gun onto a consumer vehicle.
Not from any wrongdoing on Toyota's part, but a combination of it being cheap, reliable, repairable, etc.
The guillotine is probably the only time I physically cringe as it gets romanticized due to people only remembering the 1st part:off with the king's head and not the countless innocent people beheaded equally due to one man's paranoia which was his own downfall and he too was guillotine'd.
If anything it should symbolize the cautionary tale of the how to have the power to exact punishment can and will come back to you.
Honestly it's the most humane way to execute people.
More humane than any of the methods currently in use (lethal injection can be horrifically painful if not done exactly right, and real doctors understandably refuse to participate in this thing, so a lot of times it's done wrong).
Fair point, ASML is a linchpin in the global economy, and very much a European company. But Europe has a population larger than USA, shouldn't they at least be close to us in leading edge companies? They invented the Industrial Revolution.
> An economy is there for the people. If that larger number of people have a higher quality of life than in the US, aren't they wealthier?
It's a little unclear how it shakes out there.
I've met a number of young western Europeans while traveling there who are jealous of the ability of Americans to afford that travel, while feeling like it's more out of reach to them to find a job that would let them.
On the flip side, those people also enjoy having much more time off. But hey, at least American isn't as 996'd as China yet?
There's no single linear "better" scale.
(There are, of course, many Americans without the means to travel to Europe themselves, who could give two shits about an "innovative" company being based in the US vs anywhere else since it doesn't seem to be helping them personally, but the overall mobility is still higher for now. But that's more due to the age of the country than anything else. History suggests that as low-hanging-fruit continues to close the US will also get more and more of that social stagnation too. It's easier to become upper class when you go to a place without an upper class yet.)
> I've met a number of young western Europeans while traveling there who are jealous of the ability of Americans to afford cross-ocean/different-continent multi-week trips to tier-1-hotel-cost cities, while feeling like it's more out of reach to them to find a job that would let them.
Anecdotally, I think it’s out of reach for many young Americans in my cohort (26) but we’re insulated from that in tech
while there are a lot of people in the US who also can't afford to leave the continent, even if we assume what you say is true (it isn't), I'd still prefer having the time
Well, those Europeans are only encountering the Americans who can afford to travel. There are millions of Americans who have never even left their own state. Tens of millions more who have never left the US.
It's true that most of us in Europe get more time off but we don't really get more to spend on expensive holidays. We don't have the culture of spending thousands upon thousands on holidays. Most of us think it's crazy to spend that much on travel and do it much more frugally which means we get more but at a lower level of luxury.
You sound like someone who is enjoying the retirement benefits and full social safety net. One which does not have the funding to continue on for the youth of today. You have a certain smugness about your current situation but maybe you should look at how things are actually coming along today for young people staring down the barrel of higher inflation and lower wages.
Missing out on every Revolution after the Industrial Revolution isn't a recipe for long-term success. I think you might be missing the point of the article.
I'm not trying to be inflammatory but just thought it was kind of funny that one could say the same about your own comment but just swap the placement of the words Europe and American. I think unless someone pulls up actual stats on quality of life and all that just saying what people feel is kind of meaningless.
> one could say the same about your own comment but just swap the placement of the words Europe and American
Maybe. I have citizenship in Switzerland and America. I aim politically active in both. That doesn’t give me authority—but it does afford me perspective.
And no. Europe is poorer than America. Comparable measures show the effect one would expect.
> unless someone pulls up actual stats on quality of life
These exist. Individual numbers slope as one would expect.
If you’re poor, Europe is better. If you’re middle class, it’s debatably, but probably Europe. If you’re rich, by which I mean you make a few hundred thousand a year or more, America. Obviously.
This depends entirely on which USA state is being compared. Many USA states have healthcare and social safety nets that rival or exceed typical European benefits. Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Vermont, for example.
This may be a better way to slice it. If you’re in New York, regardless of income, you have a higher standard of living than someone comparable in the EU. If you’re in Missouri, a median European lives a better life than you do.
> If you’re poor, Europe is better. If you’re middle class, it’s debatably, but probably Europe. If you’re rich, by which I mean you make a few hundred thousand a year or more, America. Obviously.
This is what most Quality of Life America/Europe arguments on Hacker News boil down to. Overrepresentation of rich people. America has more upward redistribution of wealth. Ergo America is better.
The reason Europe can do that today is because of decades of being an industrial leader in the past. But Europe will not be able to do it tomorrow unless it continues to be an industrial power today.
Anyone can take time off work and go on vacation. That is certainly more enjoyable. But it's not an economic plan for high living standards in the future.
Europe is going to have a difficult winter. You are going to see announcements of government benefit cuts, higher costs, and this will continue up until the "high standard of living" in Europe catches up with the realities of economic output.
It appears to me that in most of Europe there is an unspoken bargain: society provides you with a reasonably comfortable and secure life where your basic needs are guaranteed at least to some level, and in exchange you are supposed to stay in your lane, make sure your ambitions match and follow one of the approved tracks, and leave things like starting businesses to a hidden aristocracy with family money, who for their part generally accept higher demands on their contributions and avoid "vulgar" displays of their wealth in exchange.
The American intelligence community choose to jumpstart the Surveillance Industrial Revolution which is what has enabled companies like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook to dominate.
ASML is not the norm in Europe. It is the exception.
The top ten companies by revenue, worldwide, features zero European companies.
We in Europe cheer our meddling technocratic leadership while sneering at American risk taking and innovation. We have a fundamental cultural malaise, and those of my friends who feel the same as me have simply left Europe for a better life in the US or other dynamic economies.
At this point I feel like a stick in the mud for staying here, and quite honestly, I worry for my children's future here.
It would be very hard for a country to force it's most ambitious to not leave if there are other places eagerly recruiting them.
But when such a pull exists, it's very hard to counter that. Consider the number of non-SV places in the US that have tried to replicate that environment and basically failed. Even the famously "business friendly" places like Texas or Georgia that are success stories for poaching tech companies or film production largely work by having companies move there once they've left the high-growth phase and are no longer chasing strictly the most ambitious would-be-best-and-brightest talent.
The success stories there (that aren't just resource-extraction) have come from significant protectionism, essentially forcing a country to build its own version of the mega-companies even if it's a money-loser with copycats building shoddy copies for decades at first.
There's no easy way for Europe to magically change that with "culture." There's too many already-established mega-talent-bases in other places to think you can have people just pass up on that in a fully-global-market situation.
I would ask instead: why let those foreign mega-corps be so integral to so many basic services of modern life?
Perhaps not just Europe, but the entire world, would be better off if we had fewer monoliths and more variations, with more flexibility for local markets to develop different solutions or in different directions.
> The top ten companies by revenue, worldwide, features zero European companies.
This completely ignores Mittelstand in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. And for the record, Japan has zero corporations by revenue in the top ten, but has top five largest GDP globally. So, a failure? Or a poor metric?
It isn't a full picture, but still a very good proxy. The decline of Europe in global economy is unquestionable.
There were 17 European companies in the top 50 in 2006, 13 in 2016, 10 in 2026. Most of the remaining companies are automotive and energy (oil). None is tech. ASML isn't even in the top 100 in Europe.
Japan is the same story. There are 7 companies in the top 50 in 2006. The only remaining one in 2026 is Toyota. None is tech.
China's share has increased from 2 companies in 2006 to 12 in 2006.
In other words, China's progress and the importance of tech, along with the decline of automobile and energy accurately reflect how the global economy has changed.
(Side question: how much AI does my comment sound?)
Source: you can find plenty. Start with Fortune 500
I will summarise your answer: China GDP grew 7.5 times from 2006 to 2026. If India does the same in the next 20 years, there will be hardly any top 50 companies outside of US, China, and India. Still, it doesn't say much.
The nominal GDP per capita of the United States is about $86,000, while China's is about $13,400. Even if China has a bunch of companies in the top 50, it is still many many many many times better to live in the US, economically speaking. Even if you switch to PPP, China will roughly double to $25,000. Still, the US is way ahead.
This is expected though, right? Even in Europe, unless you're a verysmall country, most business you deal with is domestic. Do by default, the largest companies mare going to be in the largest economies. Doesn't mean you can't get lucky every now and again, but you are handicapped by not having a large domestic consumption base protected via political independence.
China and the US are continent-scale megastates. Obviously a mid-sized Atlantic island like the UK, or smallish peninsula like Italy, are not going to compete on scale.
No, if you lived long enough to remember the 90s and 2000s then you would have remembered that the European Union experiment was one that was supposed to be formidable and address the very thing that you are saying is a problem. Americans literally thought we were going to have to compete with Europeans in enterprise and innovation. Instead, the threat of European Union doing anything interesting was undeserved. China clearly deserves the recognition of being a the competitor we desperately need to keep going and make progress towards a more advanced species
And ASML wouldn't be possible without US taxpayer funded research. ASML's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) technology utilized foundational research from the U.S. Department of Energy.
> In 1997, ASML began studying a shift to using extreme ultraviolet.[7] Two years later, it joined a consortium, which included Intel and two other U.S. chipmakers, in order to exploit fundamental research conducted by the US Department of Energy. Because the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) it operates under is funded by the US government, licensing must be approved by Congress.[14] Furthermore, in return for being permitted to join this consortium, ASML committed to the establishment of a US-based research center and to source 55 percent of components for all machines sold in the US from American suppliers.[7] ASML collaborated with various manufacturers to obtain mirrors, including the Belgian firms IMEC and Sematech as well as Germany's Carl Zeiss.[14][15]
The logic is backwards. The research was already there, so ASML licensed it.
If the research wasn't there they would have developed it, and/or find another way to make it work using a somewhat different tech. This is but one of the dozen large technical issues that needed to be solved en route to EUV.
The same is true for several US companies - not doable without published research funded by the EU (or other countries in Europe outside the EU). We all freely share our publicly funded research, and whoever wants to use it for commercial success can try. That's how it works.
That includes the majority of the big tech companies, and why the US tends to throw money on importing expertise for these companies (for example AI frontier labs).
To state the obvious: Because Europe isn't adding any new fab capacity. That is crazy in the 21st century. They should be helping TSMC and Samsung build new fabs in Europe. What happened to the plan by Intel to build a modern fab in Europe?
You can read the history and learn that the technology was developed almost entirely by the US government Department of Energy, Intel, IBM, and several Japanese companies.
ASML is an important company but it is largely just an integrator of tech and process IP licensed from many different countries.
There are no competitors because USA doesn't need a competitor since it already owns most of the technology and is merely licensing it to ASML for production. The EUV light source itself is entirely researched, developed, and produced in California, for instance.
The EUV LLC research was US-funded, agreed. But the light source is Cymer, which ASML has owned since 2013. Its drive laser is Trumpf (Germany), and the optics are Zeiss (Germany). Nikon and Canon had access to the same public research and dropped EUV. The US had GCA, Perkin-Elmer and SVG, and lost the market anyway. If integration were the easy part, someone else would have done it. You are underselling what it means to perfect the machines by calling it "just integrating".
By that logic SpaceX is a German company. Liquid-fuel rocketry was researched and developed at Peenemünde, and the US brought in von Braun's team wholesale to build its program. SpaceX just integrates German IP. Or Google is Swiss. The web was invented at CERN; Google is just an integrator of European tech. Or Apple Silicon is British. ARM was designed in Cambridge; Apple just licenses it.
I'm not a particularly big believer in infinite growth, so I'm not really concerned. But, I have noticed that many people both complain that nothing is being built, but also NIMBY. Could be the goomba fallacy...
> What do Europeans think of the European economy?
First of all there is no such thing as "Europeans"; you have French, Germans, Italians etc.
> From my American perspective
Your American perspective is one created by American media, ie. corporate instruments whose job is to rationalize the American way of life and paint European regulators as some sort of backward ethnics not manifesting.
> No one seems to be building anything
You overestimate the amount of people/companies who are _actually_ building something. Watching red-eyed delusional Americans dropping by presenting an AI wrapper as innovation barely registers as "building".
> What am I missing?
The point.
Do you understand what the purpose of the government is?
Do you understand how labour and capital work?
Do you understand how the managerial class swindles semi literate investors by seeming to be building jack shit?
PS: Are there any hackers actually left in this site?
Hype. And I don’t mean this pejoratively although it has negative consequences — the US does hype better than anyone. The challenge for the US is that people can exploit hype to the point that its effect gets diminished (eg Tesla) which might have long term consequences for the sustainability of the hype machine
Reading between the lines, I blame essentially the opposite thing: too much neoliberalism, preventing governments from enacting effective industrial policy (for ideological reasons, not as a choice for a plausible pathway to the desired outcomes). There is some but too little and too indirect. The focus is more on doing as little as possible than on really doing things, on giving permission and as-small-as-possible incentives for things to be done rather than causing them to be done (let alone straight up doing them - neolibs recoil in horror).
That's how I see it anyway, almost everyone else wants to double down on neoliberalism ie the negation of industrial policy. Except perhaps Frank Heemskerk from the article, who mentions wanting governments to create demand for made-in-europe chips so that fabs get built to supply that demand.
I do not live in Europe, but I have a lot of friends living there, mostly in Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland. We recently met in Croatia, and after a few beers this topic came up. We came to the conclusion that the following crises caused Europe to start lagging behind the rest of the world:
- 2008 financial crisis. Somehow, the U.S. was able to spend its way out of the crisis, while Europe's strict austerity measures made things quite bad. That was followed by the 2010-2012 debt crisis, the 2013 Cyprus banking crisis, and another Greek debt and banking crisis in 2015.
- COVID: Most European countries, at least those with strong economies, had very strict restrictions and closures. The restrictions were as strict as they were in California. They did not really have any Texas or Florida style "rebellion" states. Sweden was the main exception. But borders and travel restrictions still existed.
- Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Europe was much more economically integrated with and dependent on Russia (especially for energy), than the U.S. or many other parts of the world.
So basically, the world has gone through three major crises in the last 15-20 years, and in each case the U.S. was either less directly affected or somehow managed the economic consequences better than Europe.
Your group started the history way too late. The 1990s is when the first big computer wave happened and Europe mostly missed on it. And then it could have had its own Google, Facebook, and Uber, but then it missed that too. This is before you start your history in 2008.
Have you ever been to Europe?? Things they are building: proper trains; proper roads; proper particle accelerators; proper airliners; proper bread; proper cars; the AI that the USA thinks is so amazing; ARM CPUs; ...
And speaking of "a less prosperous society" -- have you been to most of the USA recently? Doesn't look very prosperous to me vs most of Europe.
That totally depends. If you're focused on tech, then that's one thing. But if you want overall quality of life, I can't imagine this is true. Work/life balance seems way more balanced in pretty much any part of Europe. It also probably depends on one's age.
I firmly believe my quality of life where I live is many times better than in places like San Francisco or Seattle. In many ways, this was likely the best decision I ever made.
Not getting too specific to avoid having my HN account being in any way related to my real identity. In fact, it is about time I should create a new account and retire this one.
There is definitely much more happening than what american media tells us. When I visit family in Germany they are all doing pretty well. There are problems with expensive housing but that seems to be a worldwide problem.
But there definitely seems to be a lack of ambition in business and technology. For example, the car companies seem to be more coasting on past successes vs pushing things forward. Europe is also not trying much to compete in AI.
When I visit the US everything strikes me as overbuilt to the point of being dull or in the case of vehicles, downright dangerous. The dullness part, especially, is a real pain. Cheap concrete sidewalks. Cheap looking infrastructure everywhere, etc.
There are few places I've seen that seemed as dull or boring when walking through them as the LA metro area, for example. Yes, there are also awesome looking neighborhoods, but damn, I didn't actually realize those concrete brick 1 floor no sloped roof buildings were truly universal as were those very ugly vacant lots with wire fences.
I imagine most LA residents are just used to them plus they only drive by them.
They had two world wars and devastated cities to rebuild. They also had the very real threat of further escalation with the raging Cold War. Meanwhile, the US had no real threat of further violence. Most of those with the adventurous spirit found their way to the US to continue the westward expansion and seems to be Europe's biggest export.
The damage from WW2 to Europe was not limited to bombing and killing, it includes the economic harm inflicted on Eastern Europe in the decades afterwards by the Soviets.
SV in 1990s was effect of 60-70 years of hardcore government funding that was not only not stopped, but amplified by WW2 whereas Europe was heavily wrecked by it (UK finally stopped wartime rationing of food in 1954!). In comparison, in 1945 USA was trying to redirect wartime production surplus into other sinks to give "soft landing" to industry and invented new approaches to discriminate women from workforce to create openings for returning soldiers.
Could something be done starting with 1990? Probably, though the much fragmented by natural borders (if not regulatory) markets with resulting less cash-flush companies had issues fighting against US competition being able to underprice them with politicians ensuring there were no barriers for american companies "or else".
Some of it was at worst mostly local (if with American "advisors"), like in Poland - we started technically from same position as Taiwan when it came to semiconductor manufacturing, but instead of investing "shock therapy" destroyed it. At the same time... can you mention a taiwan major business that is not TSMC, or part of semiconductor manufacturing chain? Without thinking too long or googling?
I would characterize it a bit differently. It seems like there’s a combination of not understanding what drives prosperity, and consciously rejecting the tradeoffs of prospering.
Which country? It's a pretty mixed bag across the continent (though you could say the same about US states). From my POV it's fine, preferable to the US even (much as I would likely make more there). Most of the supposed problems are heavily exaggerated, especially with regard to the EU's rules and regulations.
Europe has been anti-innovation for a long time, completely missing the tech wave in the 2000s. I was hopeful that Europe would learn from its past mistakes, but now it is also completely missing the AI wave and falling behind.
The politics are bad, way too user-centric (see Arthur Mensch complaining about AI regulation), and the European mentality does not help. The social safety net is strong, which is good, but perhaps too generous given the state of the economy. Without sufficient economic growth, it becomes unsustainable, leading to a lower and lower quality of social benefits.
People complain, rightly so, that things were better before, but nobody does anything or even seems to understand that innovation and economic growth are what fuel everything.
I am very bearish on the state of Europe, which, as a European, makes me sad.
It's just the takeover of the continent by an ossified bureaucratic class. Their opinions and actions do not represent the European people's but quite the opposite of it.
I am an American and I think Europe had been pro people. They did mess up some things, for example cookie banners are annoying AF. However they also forced phone manufacturers, most famously Apple, to switch to USB-C chargers. Focusing on stock market valuations and salaries, EU is running a clearly economically inferior strategy. Ironically I want to raise my kids in EU... after making enough to start a family in US.
I knew two engineers, one in the US, one in europe.
The one in the US worked at a chip company and they had gotten a chip back and it worked without any respin.
The one in europe was working with GPS stuff and with a european chip that was on spin 400+. (it's been a while so I don't have more info, but I think maybe it was government subsidized?)
I couldn't help but think something was seriously wrong with european engineering.
The first rule of government spending, why build one when you can build two at twice the price? Sounds like the project's goal wasn't to build a successful thing, but to bilk the government for as much funding for as long as possible.
Yeah but the quantum computing "industry" in the US is exactly the same thing.
The US goverment continues puking out cash to prop up this clusterfuck. The EU governments stopped puking cash for it, which is why all the EU quantum companies moved to the US.
Quantum computing has basically zero credible commercial demand.
Timelines for anything useful are perpetually 15 years out. Even the QC boosters refuse to commit to a timeline for Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computing. But they sure love scaring everybody with it as a boogeyman.
I knew 2 engineers too. One worked in the UK for ARM and one worked for Intel. At that time, Intel were doing IA64 and ARM weren't that popular. Can't help but think something is wrong with USA engineering.
I’ll assume your question is genuine and benevolent and not like my social media feed full of Europe vs USA ragebait.
I believe these economies and cultures are optimized for different things. And also I’d be precise about the country as well, since UK, Norway and Italy are also optimized for different targets. More accidentally then a cunning plan around it to be honest.
Americans as a culture are more risk takers. This is normally a good thing for entrepreneurship. They are also rather tax friendly. Which is great for capital intensive businesses like the unicorns you are asking why we see less of this in Europe. Take Norway, come here with a ton of cash and make a anthropic competitor, and you are probably a fool. Taxes alone will punish such huge capital. Less so in UK though.
But what you hear less about is the huge amount of medium companies around Europe. They have their small niche in pharma, manufacturing etc. They are often highly trusted. Often highly profitable. Often keep their people longer with lower tendencies of burnout.
But would often be seen as a failure by US vcs, as they perhaps lack a giant market to grow further into. This can lead to a lower stock price then price per earning would suggest.
Nor to say that those companies don’t exist in the US. I’m just saying the entire economy is not just lifted by companies like alibaba and google.
Right and there are also quite a few industries where Europe is way ahead of the US, to name a few:
- Railways and signalling equipment
- Container shipping
- Reinsurance
- Industrial machinery
- Wind turbine technology
- Luxury goods, luxury fashion and fast fashion
- Tourism
A big difference is that in Europe most companies are not big conglomerates. Yes everyone has heard of Siemens. But then you have tonnes of companies like WALDNER, based in a small German town with revenues of €350m, they make packaging equipment that can fill 100,000 yogurt pots per hour. Oh and they are a private company.
> What a weird one to pick. Do you think the US doesn't have massive ports like Europe?
The US has ports. But they don't build civilian ships, and they don't really own ships either. The vast majority of American shipping is floated on ships owned by Europeans and built by East Asians
Neither the US nor Europe builds ships, they are almost all built in East Asia. China, South Korea, and Japan collectively build virtually all ships.
But of course anyone can buy and operate ships. Europe still has large shipping companies, although they are losing marketshare to Asia now, whereas the US has never been a dominant player in this area.
The US does operate some massive logistics companies that are a bit higher in the stack.
That's why it's so crazy to see Europe sabotage its shipping industry by seizing Russian ships and banning so many oil transports. That is going to result in Russia seizing European ships and the asian shipping carriers taking even more market share.
My country has lots of successful companies, subsidies for startups and funding available. Second highest by some metrics in terms of innovation in the world.
Truth is though none of it matters if the planet goes up in flames.
I am European, and I share this sentiment. I also think that's it's not only about preventing advancements, but also trying to kill the industries that have been important to our economy.
Nothing. Europeans can be divided into two groups. Skilled people working nice jobs. These people already have enough and are satisied with their lot. Then you have the people that are struggling. These are generally not the kind of voter that would support effective government policies and instead mostly gravitate towards pro-welfare and anti-immigration parties.
Something that distinguishes Europeans from Americans is the general level of economic security here. This is generally good for the mental and physical health of everyone involved, but it does mean that there's no hustling or grindset among the educated classes here.
From a Canadian perspective, the US looks like it's trying to destroy itself, not just lose. But yet people in the US seem far more interested in shitting on other countries than fixing their own shit.
And from a purely European perspective it looks like the US is trying to do the same. We just don't have the full picture of either side.
Europe did not push enough in the software market, which is where the US is definitely on top. There's tons of specialized engineering companies in Europe that manufacture equipment that can't be done anywhere else. Less public coverage because it's not consumer facing, but ASML is just one example of it (who are well known publicly of course). There are obvious factors right now (e.g. war in Ukraine) that put a strain on public spending, but that's also the case for the US, and before that covid, and honestly when's the last time this has not been the case for everyone. Though the EU currently also needs to first scramble to reduce it's dependencies (especially in energy).
this doesn't really make sense to me. fundamentally, if naively, price is a function of supply and demand. if there is no demand in Europe - then there is a price problem. but i don't like the expectation that governments should subsidize mega corporations profits. the article doesn't really convince me the investment is beneficial to europeans.
>if there is no demand in Europe - then there is a price problem
A price problem in terms of it not being worth the cost... sure.. but that's because there are little/no fabs in Europe. Lowering the price, even by magic, doesnt really seem like it would matter.
>but i don't like the expectation that governments should subsidize mega corporations profits.
To be clear they are asking the EU to kickstart chip fabrication. Which is a chicken-and-egg problem. A fab can't tool up without orders. Orders wont come without tooling. It's in the EU's interest to fabricate chips locally.
> It's in the EU's interest to fabricate chips locally.
Is it though? I'd put forward that it's in the EU's interest to foster good international relationships. Countries can get away without domestic strategic industries if they can play nice with others.
Good relationships won't do much when China puts the squeeze on Taiwan. Obviously there are other fabs in other countries, but the EU won't be the only market looking for alternatives.
Absolutely not. A quick Google search can provide a long list of fabs in Europe. There are many, many fabs in Europe. However, they are not expanding, so ASML has nothing to sell them.
373 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 75.1 ms ] threadBut that's little consolation I understand. I get that when there are two elephants sitting on you, someone telling you how fortunate you are to not have a third one on top of you as well, is a little annoying.
But now Trump is inviting Putin to G20 and I'm sure sure all those EU politician would be all smily and act like no war is going on and gladly talk with Putin. If you think about it the war could have ended years ago and all the Ukranian/Russian lives lost could have been avoided if EU leaders were not so arrogant.
Europe has 15x the GDP of Russia. If they were "hell bent" on militarily defeating Russia, they could have made even tiny sacrifices to the social welfare system, diverted industrial production to military aid, and drowned Ukraine in help. That was a very achievable goal, and they didn't do it.
Instead, the vacillated on importing US natural gas, continued shutting down nuclear power plants, and paid Russia MORE CASH FOR OIL than they ended up giving Ukraine in military aid! They did not in fact, dedicate themselves to this war in any way shape or form.
Europe is of course well aware that war with Russia seems increasingly inevitable, and have been preparing for it.
What is the source for this? I have seen some news articles with this narrative, it was more on the line of fear-mongering rather than providing evidence.
Europe is not tolerating Russian drone incursions, and has been shooting them down, have been on air combat footing patrolling the finish border and Kalinograd region (operating out of Lithuania), boosting defense of the Suwałki Gap, etc.
YouTube is perhaps one of the best sources of information, since US MSM is not interested.
You lost me at this. If your official source of information is YouTube, then good luck.
Not such an easy thing to say if you’re the one facing that threat. Nobody wants their own country to be invaded and conquered.
And Russia would take that as a green light to keep on conquering other former Soviet states. Where do you draw the line?
How exactly is Europe to blame for Russia continuing its war in Ukraine? Russia has clearly demonstrated a lack of interest in peace on any terms that could be acceptable to Ukraine.
Putin is deathly afraid of being assassinated and is avoiding air travel in favor of trains, has identical office to film in at multiple locations to hide his location. There is no chance he is getting on a plane to Florida.
> If you think about it the war could have ended years ago and all the Ukranian/Russian lives lost could have been avoided if EU leaders were not so arrogant.
How so? By Europe rolling over and not supporting Ukraine?
Get out of Belgium, then - if it was you and your people.
There are clear ideological, decadent faults in the eu administration. They are responsible for the destruction of one of the main continental industries, transferring (even reduced) pollution to Africa, where decent old cars go (with again no effect on global warming), and transferring the enterprise to China.
"The swan's shriek".
From my point of view is as awful as it can get: stark inequality, literally hundreds of thousands of homeless people roaming, no basic health care, but to be honest just the number of guns pro capita is enough to keep me and most of other Europeans away for good, it's just insane for what we're accustomed to. And I'm not even referring to the dystopian situation worsened daily by the current administration.
Unless you're the kind of person who confuses absolute numbers (e.g. money you can spend per month) for actual wealth / quality of life / freedoms / rights protection / etc. Then perhaps USA is the right place, I guess?
FWIW, FEANTSA estimated over 1.2MM homeless in Europe in their most recent report[1]. That's over a population of 515MM so ~23 per 10k population. Us 746k homeless is roughly 22 per 10k population. I suspect that differences in methodology will overwhelm that 1/10k difference, but the order of magnitude seems similar.
1/3 of the US homeless are unsheltered ("Living Rough" in the FEANTSA terminology). A quick skim of the FEANTSA report did not show any countries breaking out their rough-sleepers from the rest of the data. I do suspect that this number is higher than in the EU.
1: https://www.feantsa.org/files/Themes/Overview/2024/Rapport_-...
The numbers seem to say it's the same in theory, in practice my experience is that it very much doesn't _feel_ the same.
I saw that in London, in Rome and afair in Berlin
Not to the same extend as camping villages in LA but still. But I also didn't go that much inside those bad parts of cities in Europe, in US I drove through them
More in general, the feel you get as an European visiting the US is that either you're in, or completly out of the society. There's not much of a grey area, more like a quantum leap.
I can and all of them are from EU.
(Don't know your country to know if that's true or not, but it's a possibility)
Retirees and people who already made money to outbid the locals on housing and purchasing power.
Why would they move to a more expensive country where they'd feel poor?
Think about it... a hint, it's not about money.
By comparison, try emigrating as a poor person from a poor country with a weak passport. Americans are playing life on easy mode but they complain the most.
If the car companies actually go down the drain I have no clue what products of note we would still be producing that would continue to bring money in. So, I think our goose is cooked here in Europe.
In Ireland alone we manufacture:
* Cardiovascular Stents (80% of Global Supply)
* Orthopaedic Knee Implants (75% of Global Supply)
* Acute Hospital Ventilators (50% of Global Supply)
* Contact Lenses (World Leader)
19 of the world's top 20 pharmaceutical companies operate manufacturing, R&D, or biopharma facilities in Ireland; this compromises over 50% of all physical goods exported from Ireland, totaling well over €100 billion annually. Needless to say it's also the pivotal manufacturing hub for high-demand GLP-1 weight-loss and diabetes treatments (like Mounjaro).
Ireland is among the top global exporters of antisera, blood fractions, and complex cell cultures, making it indispensable to global healthcare infrastructure.
Ireland is the absolute world leader in dairy science per capita, and produces roughly 10% to 15% of the entire world's infant milk formula, with estimates indicating that roughly one in ten to one in seven babies globally consume formula manufactured in the country.
That's an Island of less than 5 million people, 1/8th the size of Texas, that was basically bypassed by the Industrial Revolution and had no colonial benefit. Now extrapolate for a second and imagine what Germany is manufacturing.
The Republic of Ireland has more than 5 million people. The Island has well over 7 million.
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2026/0824/1588997-cso-popul...
The population of the 26 counties only hit 5 million in 2021, in the midst of lockdown. It then surged massively with global instability, with a 2.2 per cent increase in 2022 alone with the first round of Ukrainian refugees forming the majority of the 117,000 added to the population count.
This was hugely evident during the recent spate of tech layoffs - employers planning collective dismissals are obliged to hold a mandatory 30-day consultation with employee representatives and notify the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment beforehand. Issuing premature "done deal" announcements before meaningful consultation breaches Irish law.
Even at the micro level, non-collective or individual restructuring must still rely on objective selection criteria and fair procedures. Failing to do so exposes employers to Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) claims for unfair or constructive dismissal.
There's also very very strict regulations around work/life issues. A famous case this year in 2023 where a Customer Care Team Lead at the Dublin office of Israeli software company Wix was dismissed after posting comments on LinkedIn. In her posts, she described Israel as a "terrorist state" and referred to Zionism as "the root of violence" while expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people. In July 2024, the WRC ordered Wix to pay Carey €35,000 in compensation after Wix acknowledged that the dismissal was "procedurally unfair" under Irish employment law.
In short, we're not that poor and have significant societal safety-nets that make up the delta in direct wages.
This can be compared to protectionist policies such as tariffs.
If employees are hard to fire, then companies hesitate to hire them.
If employees on-shore are protected, then un-protected employees overseas are more competitive, eventually gutting local industries.
Etc.
This came up in Australia recently where a liberal government proposed loosening some employee protection laws with the idea that it would encourage hiring.
It did. It worked.
Then the policy was swiftly reversed by a more left-wing party, and a lot of those newly employed people lost their jobs because they turned from an asset to a liability.
Protectionism is a double-edged sword.
That's quite a bit short to buy an EUV machine.
But of course, the parent commenter was not talking about salaries, because ASMLs products are not B2C.
Missing from article is where they are selling which I assume is mostly Taiwan and America.
There are no companies in Europe designing high-end semiconductors because the wages are much lower than in the U.S. The best European talent is moving Stateside and raking in ten times what they can get at home without having to build up seniority first.
Just to address this separately: there is effectively energy rationing in several European countries, where the government intervenes to prioritize who should receive energy first (e.g., the Netherlands and Denmark).
But no, this failure is due a mixture or privatisation and politicians looking no further than the next election, leading to structural underinvestment.
Oh, and the energy transition going faster than even the most forward looking scenarios anticipated.
Solvable but we need to be much smarter and redirect the fossil subsidies to reducing risk for grid-scale batteries and adding more grid capacity.
But yeah, we have one party that is most often in government that just loves privatisation, taxing workers more and the rich less, etc. and engages in a lot of short-term thinking. Apropos short-term thinking, one of them was a prime minister for 14 years and cut defense spending and did not even consider increasing spending when Russia invaded Crimea. And now he is the secretary general of NATO. Talking about failing upwards. Though he is probably primarily chosen for being able to communicate with Trump.
Water. Energy. Public transport (which is partially privatised). Healthcare has been a disaster.
Same thing for the UK but the results there were much much worse, especially the water (Brexit made it 10x worse). It was driven by the actions of the Unions in the 1970s (where they were taking the mickey) but of course went way way way too far. What was needed was to tweak the system such that the unions couldn't blackmail the Labour governments. Not to break it all up and sell it off for pennies on the dollar.
Those alive invest in long term planning, those with a dead drive get conservative in their action.
This does not counter that an idle, decadent mentality will have curbed growth everywhere.
This was strategically planned with EU as part of bringing back production locally, similar to CHIPS Act in the US.
And it's not like US has companies doing own manufacturing outside of Intel. CHIPS specifically wanted to address that.
But even more importantly, they need 2 separate completely independent substation feeds, since a 15 second interruption can cause 0.1B Euro of losses.
Finally, and here is where Europe really really suffers, generally you need these things to be planned, approved and built within a year.
I think that is not even possible in China, let alone in the USA.
> Finally, and here is where Europe really really suffers, generally you need these things to be planned, approved and built within a year.
Like the offshore wind farms in the US? I think Europe and China are building these things much faster. ;)
EUV lithography and etching rooms require ISO class 1 clean rooms. Those can have a maximum of 10 particles of size 0.1 microns per cubic meter.
While a shopping mall can get away with 2 - 4 air changes per hour, an ISO class 1 clean room requires 400-600 an hour, or about 10 a minute. Airflow needs to also be controlled: vertical and laminar. Every human entering the cleanroom needs to undergo an air shower with speeds of 60-90 mph to shear off loose skin flakes, hair and lint. This area needs to maintain constant positive air pressure to repel outside dust as humans move in and out.
In the EUV lithography systems, temperature control is measured in milliKelvins (0.001 C). If a wafer stage has a temperature variation of 0.05 C, the silicon expands by a few nanometers and the multimillion dollar batch is toast. Meanwhile in the same room, the EUV machine is generating extreme ultraviolet light using a plasma light source that gets to above 200,000 C. That's 40x hotter than the surface of the sun.
> I always thought of these as high-precision, not-too-high-volume processes
EUV rooms are churning out about 150 wafers an hour, 24/7. That sounds like not too high of a volume, but each wafer is about 500 cpus. So 75,000 cpus an hour.
They have special security guards who make sure you do the procedure correctly.
Vacuum does not dissipate heat well (extra engineering in that department)
Vacuum is never 100% vacuum. If you have some dust in the air, it will mostly flow to the direction of the airflow, but in vacuum dust particles will do random walk thing and settle on surfaces.
You can't use normal plastic or any kind of lubricant anymore because it starts degasing inside the vacuum, pump down after opening to air is a multi-day process that involves heating everything up to 150°C to get rid of the water that will settle on basically every surface when you pull the vacuum, every electricity feedthrough is a potential point of failure, transfering objects between different stages is a huge hassle etc. pp.
I'm sure there's still lots of UHV and HV systems in a chip fab, but there's no way that's easier on a full factory scale than clean room operation.
Heat dissipation would be the obvious problem.
So that brand-new fab has to pay for itself within the first 3-5 years, or it'll simply never pay for itself. But indeed, once it has paid off its initial construction costs it'll happily keep running for another 10+ years, churning out pure profit.
An additional problem here is that the costs have been rapidly increasing as the nodes have gotten more advanced. The tech for something like, say, the 40nm node is now mature enough that building new fabs isn't too expensive, so there's a decent market for building new ancient fabs for cheap mass production. But with EUV everything has gotten so complicated that there's no reasonable way to make it cheaper as it matures, and scale-wise you're well into the diminishing returns for everything which isn't logic. It is very much doubtful whether building brand-new 7nm-and-smaller fabs for mass production will ever make economic sense.
This is just such a dire situation to be in. Even USA has seen the writing on the wall regarding China-Taiwan which is why it has been strategically re-homing all the most advanced chip fab technology to Arizona [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSMC_Arizona
While bleeding edge backend processes got the bulk of reporting, the major push for the American CHIPS Act was the rebuild packaging capacity in the US (Samsung is working on this in Texas).
This was also the same approach Taiwan, Malaysia, and China used to climb up the semiconductor value chain.
The EU also failed to tie design capacity together as well, as semiconductor design capacity is almost nonexistent in Europe.
If you have a two step problem, the strategy of "I can't do two things at the same time so I'll just give up", is not a good one.
With Europe, I have no idea what they aim to achieve. They are losing their auto industry. Energy is so expensive they are losing their chemical and metallurgy industries. They are not moving to tech. They are not, as far as I know, investing heavily in any area at all other than spending money on stuff made elsewhere.
What is the plan for Europe's economy? Tourism?
Are you earnestly confused or are you being rhetorical? The US has a long history of subsidies across nearly its entire catalogue of exports.
The European Commission wanted to put hefty tariffs on dumped Chinese steel but the carmakers sought an exemption. They don't care about European sovereignty, only about their profits. Penny wise and pound foolish. I doubt there will still be a European car industry in two decades or so.
Europe is a lost continent.
You clearly have no idea about the value creation chain. Steel is a commodity, why shoot yourself into the foot by buying expensive one. And semiconductors are not commodities.
But I guess this logic only makes sense to a country that insists on using its own overpriced steel to save a couple jobs.
Steel is not a commodity, it's a basic ingredient in any industrial base.
Europe is just a geographic accident as far as the Dutch are concerned.
Europe is increasingly relying on the rest of the world to supply it with critical things. It’s FAFOed with regulations that have driven these things elsewhere and now is heading into a “FO” world of hurt as the tables are turned and they desperately need things and have to pay the price. This will likely define the next 20 years in Europe.
Chip production is not nearly as high in value as all the things you can build with those chips.
Local production is about supply chain security, not profit. Europe doesn’t mind one bit paying for chips produced somewhere else, but it does mind a world order where global trade is unreliable.
It is what it is.
The thing that seems to have changed is that both the US and Russia are determined to destroy their own future.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49844663
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49823628
( /s)
Yeah, I am advocating for I would like to happen (hopefully INTEL and AMD will put a RISC-V decodecs on their µarchitecture out of good will... yeah since they hold the x86 and x86_64 IP then excluding all alternatives de-facto... the incentive is.. negative.
If I am not mistaken, EU is currently pouring money in defence. For defence needs, one state-of-art chip build line is enough... the EU armies could even share it.
Not from any wrongdoing on Toyota's part, but a combination of it being cheap, reliable, repairable, etc.
If anything it should symbolize the cautionary tale of the how to have the power to exact punishment can and will come back to you.
More humane than any of the methods currently in use (lethal injection can be horrifically painful if not done exactly right, and real doctors understandably refuse to participate in this thing, so a lot of times it's done wrong).
The article is literally about ASML, the company that builds the most complex machine ever built by humans.
I can pick a couple of other companies across a wide variety of industries if you'd like.
An economy is there for the people. If that larger number of people have a higher quality of life than in the US, aren't they wealthier?
And if they do it for less money, aren't they wiser?
> They invented the Industrial Revolution.
And a lot more, my friend! You're welcome.
It's a little unclear how it shakes out there.
I've met a number of young western Europeans while traveling there who are jealous of the ability of Americans to afford that travel, while feeling like it's more out of reach to them to find a job that would let them.
On the flip side, those people also enjoy having much more time off. But hey, at least American isn't as 996'd as China yet?
There's no single linear "better" scale.
(There are, of course, many Americans without the means to travel to Europe themselves, who could give two shits about an "innovative" company being based in the US vs anywhere else since it doesn't seem to be helping them personally, but the overall mobility is still higher for now. But that's more due to the age of the country than anything else. History suggests that as low-hanging-fruit continues to close the US will also get more and more of that social stagnation too. It's easier to become upper class when you go to a place without an upper class yet.)
Anecdotally, I think it’s out of reach for many young Americans in my cohort (26) but we’re insulated from that in tech
Europeans have time for traveling but not money. A third of Europeans can’t even afford a one week holiday.
It's true that most of us in Europe get more time off but we don't really get more to spend on expensive holidays. We don't have the culture of spending thousands upon thousands on holidays. Most of us think it's crazy to spend that much on travel and do it much more frugally which means we get more but at a lower level of luxury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
But no one cares about gpd per capita
Maybe. I have citizenship in Switzerland and America. I aim politically active in both. That doesn’t give me authority—but it does afford me perspective.
And no. Europe is poorer than America. Comparable measures show the effect one would expect.
> unless someone pulls up actual stats on quality of life
These exist. Individual numbers slope as one would expect.
If you’re poor, Europe is better. If you’re middle class, it’s debatably, but probably Europe. If you’re rich, by which I mean you make a few hundred thousand a year or more, America. Obviously.
This depends entirely on which USA state is being compared. Many USA states have healthcare and social safety nets that rival or exceed typical European benefits. Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Vermont, for example.
This is what most Quality of Life America/Europe arguments on Hacker News boil down to. Overrepresentation of rich people. America has more upward redistribution of wealth. Ergo America is better.
Anyone can take time off work and go on vacation. That is certainly more enjoyable. But it's not an economic plan for high living standards in the future.
Europe is going to have a difficult winter. You are going to see announcements of government benefit cuts, higher costs, and this will continue up until the "high standard of living" in Europe catches up with the realities of economic output.
Europe didn't choose to do that.
The top ten companies by revenue, worldwide, features zero European companies.
We in Europe cheer our meddling technocratic leadership while sneering at American risk taking and innovation. We have a fundamental cultural malaise, and those of my friends who feel the same as me have simply left Europe for a better life in the US or other dynamic economies.
At this point I feel like a stick in the mud for staying here, and quite honestly, I worry for my children's future here.
But when such a pull exists, it's very hard to counter that. Consider the number of non-SV places in the US that have tried to replicate that environment and basically failed. Even the famously "business friendly" places like Texas or Georgia that are success stories for poaching tech companies or film production largely work by having companies move there once they've left the high-growth phase and are no longer chasing strictly the most ambitious would-be-best-and-brightest talent.
The success stories there (that aren't just resource-extraction) have come from significant protectionism, essentially forcing a country to build its own version of the mega-companies even if it's a money-loser with copycats building shoddy copies for decades at first.
There's no easy way for Europe to magically change that with "culture." There's too many already-established mega-talent-bases in other places to think you can have people just pass up on that in a fully-global-market situation.
I would ask instead: why let those foreign mega-corps be so integral to so many basic services of modern life?
Perhaps not just Europe, but the entire world, would be better off if we had fewer monoliths and more variations, with more flexibility for local markets to develop different solutions or in different directions.
There were 17 European companies in the top 50 in 2006, 13 in 2016, 10 in 2026. Most of the remaining companies are automotive and energy (oil). None is tech. ASML isn't even in the top 100 in Europe.
Japan is the same story. There are 7 companies in the top 50 in 2006. The only remaining one in 2026 is Toyota. None is tech.
China's share has increased from 2 companies in 2006 to 12 in 2006.
In other words, China's progress and the importance of tech, along with the decline of automobile and energy accurately reflect how the global economy has changed.
(Side question: how much AI does my comment sound?)
Source: you can find plenty. Start with Fortune 500
The nominal GDP per capita of the United States is about $86,000, while China's is about $13,400. Even if China has a bunch of companies in the top 50, it is still many many many many times better to live in the US, economically speaking. Even if you switch to PPP, China will roughly double to $25,000. Still, the US is way ahead.
China and the US are continent-scale megastates. Obviously a mid-sized Atlantic island like the UK, or smallish peninsula like Italy, are not going to compete on scale.
> In 1997, ASML began studying a shift to using extreme ultraviolet.[7] Two years later, it joined a consortium, which included Intel and two other U.S. chipmakers, in order to exploit fundamental research conducted by the US Department of Energy. Because the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) it operates under is funded by the US government, licensing must be approved by Congress.[14] Furthermore, in return for being permitted to join this consortium, ASML committed to the establishment of a US-based research center and to source 55 percent of components for all machines sold in the US from American suppliers.[7] ASML collaborated with various manufacturers to obtain mirrors, including the Belgian firms IMEC and Sematech as well as Germany's Carl Zeiss.[14][15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASML
ASML is definitely a fully globalist enterprise.
That includes the majority of the big tech companies, and why the US tends to throw money on importing expertise for these companies (for example AI frontier labs).
Yet Europe is stagnant.
I am so glad that I don't have to live in the US right now. If this is loosing we should do even more of it.
I mean, Europe built ASML, for one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUV_lithography
You can read the history and learn that the technology was developed almost entirely by the US government Department of Energy, Intel, IBM, and several Japanese companies.
ASML is an important company but it is largely just an integrator of tech and process IP licensed from many different countries.
By that logic SpaceX is a German company. Liquid-fuel rocketry was researched and developed at Peenemünde, and the US brought in von Braun's team wholesale to build its program. SpaceX just integrates German IP. Or Google is Swiss. The web was invented at CERN; Google is just an integrator of European tech. Or Apple Silicon is British. ARM was designed in Cambridge; Apple just licenses it.
I think this is part of it. Growth is treated with skepticism in Europe.
Growth isn't "jobs, high salaries, innovation, cheap good/utilities, well funded military" there it's "pollution, inequality, big corporations".
It's no surprise that they aren't growing as fast as other regions: it's not their priority.
As the saying goes, if you aren't growing...
First of all there is no such thing as "Europeans"; you have French, Germans, Italians etc.
> From my American perspective
Your American perspective is one created by American media, ie. corporate instruments whose job is to rationalize the American way of life and paint European regulators as some sort of backward ethnics not manifesting.
> No one seems to be building anything
You overestimate the amount of people/companies who are _actually_ building something. Watching red-eyed delusional Americans dropping by presenting an AI wrapper as innovation barely registers as "building".
> What am I missing?
The point.
Do you understand what the purpose of the government is? Do you understand how labour and capital work? Do you understand how the managerial class swindles semi literate investors by seeming to be building jack shit?
PS: Are there any hackers actually left in this site?
That's how I see it anyway, almost everyone else wants to double down on neoliberalism ie the negation of industrial policy. Except perhaps Frank Heemskerk from the article, who mentions wanting governments to create demand for made-in-europe chips so that fabs get built to supply that demand.
- 2008 financial crisis. Somehow, the U.S. was able to spend its way out of the crisis, while Europe's strict austerity measures made things quite bad. That was followed by the 2010-2012 debt crisis, the 2013 Cyprus banking crisis, and another Greek debt and banking crisis in 2015.
- COVID: Most European countries, at least those with strong economies, had very strict restrictions and closures. The restrictions were as strict as they were in California. They did not really have any Texas or Florida style "rebellion" states. Sweden was the main exception. But borders and travel restrictions still existed.
- Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Europe was much more economically integrated with and dependent on Russia (especially for energy), than the U.S. or many other parts of the world.
So basically, the world has gone through three major crises in the last 15-20 years, and in each case the U.S. was either less directly affected or somehow managed the economic consequences better than Europe.
And speaking of "a less prosperous society" -- have you been to most of the USA recently? Doesn't look very prosperous to me vs most of Europe.
If the measure of "winning" is chasing any current hype so that line goes up no matter the cost, I would rather not be in such a place.
I think that that Berlin is 100x better than Atlanta. But on the other hand, San Francisco is a million times better than Milan.
FAANG, west coast.
I firmly believe my quality of life where I live is many times better than in places like San Francisco or Seattle. In many ways, this was likely the best decision I ever made.
Not getting too specific to avoid having my HN account being in any way related to my real identity. In fact, it is about time I should create a new account and retire this one.
Take those out of what US "builds" and Us doesnt look very exceptional
Big tech isn’t that big. Silicon Valley is $840B, while the US is $32T, so about 3%.
The US could lose all of Silicon Valley and still be much more productive than the EU.
In the top 100, there are only 8: ASML, Siemens, SAP, L'Oréal, LVMH, TotalEnergies, Santander, and Seagate Technology.
In 2005, the EU (excluding the UK) had 19 companies in the top 100.
So something is going on.
If you take out the exceptional parts then the US doesn’t look exceptional? Forgive me if I’m not convinced by this argument.
You’re also generalizing too deeply. The top companies in the US cover a lot more than ads and social media.
But there definitely seems to be a lack of ambition in business and technology. For example, the car companies seem to be more coasting on past successes vs pushing things forward. Europe is also not trying much to compete in AI.
There are few places I've seen that seemed as dull or boring when walking through them as the LA metro area, for example. Yes, there are also awesome looking neighborhoods, but damn, I didn't actually realize those concrete brick 1 floor no sloped roof buildings were truly universal as were those very ugly vacant lots with wire fences.
I imagine most LA residents are just used to them plus they only drive by them.
Instead the wall fell and Europe decided to go on vacation for 35 years
Did you misread the time period they suggested?
By the mid-90s we were 50 years after the end of the war. It didn't take three generations to put the cities and infrastructure back together.
Europe did itself in with intense bureaucracy and a culture of "individual wealth is bad"
Could something be done starting with 1990? Probably, though the much fragmented by natural borders (if not regulatory) markets with resulting less cash-flush companies had issues fighting against US competition being able to underprice them with politicians ensuring there were no barriers for american companies "or else".
Some of it was at worst mostly local (if with American "advisors"), like in Poland - we started technically from same position as Taiwan when it came to semiconductor manufacturing, but instead of investing "shock therapy" destroyed it. At the same time... can you mention a taiwan major business that is not TSMC, or part of semiconductor manufacturing chain? Without thinking too long or googling?
> From my American perspective it looks like they are trying to lose
How're the tarrifs going?
Europe has been anti-innovation for a long time, completely missing the tech wave in the 2000s. I was hopeful that Europe would learn from its past mistakes, but now it is also completely missing the AI wave and falling behind.
The politics are bad, way too user-centric (see Arthur Mensch complaining about AI regulation), and the European mentality does not help. The social safety net is strong, which is good, but perhaps too generous given the state of the economy. Without sufficient economic growth, it becomes unsustainable, leading to a lower and lower quality of social benefits.
People complain, rightly so, that things were better before, but nobody does anything or even seems to understand that innovation and economic growth are what fuel everything.
I am very bearish on the state of Europe, which, as a European, makes me sad.
Disclaimer: I have immigrated to the US.
The one in the US worked at a chip company and they had gotten a chip back and it worked without any respin.
The one in europe was working with GPS stuff and with a european chip that was on spin 400+. (it's been a while so I don't have more info, but I think maybe it was government subsidized?)
I couldn't help but think something was seriously wrong with european engineering.
The first rule of government spending, why build one when you can build two at twice the price? Sounds like the project's goal wasn't to build a successful thing, but to bilk the government for as much funding for as long as possible.
The US goverment continues puking out cash to prop up this clusterfuck. The EU governments stopped puking cash for it, which is why all the EU quantum companies moved to the US.
Quantum computing has basically zero credible commercial demand.
Timelines for anything useful are perpetually 15 years out. Even the QC boosters refuse to commit to a timeline for Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computing. But they sure love scaring everybody with it as a boogeyman.
I’ll assume your question is genuine and benevolent and not like my social media feed full of Europe vs USA ragebait.
I believe these economies and cultures are optimized for different things. And also I’d be precise about the country as well, since UK, Norway and Italy are also optimized for different targets. More accidentally then a cunning plan around it to be honest.
Americans as a culture are more risk takers. This is normally a good thing for entrepreneurship. They are also rather tax friendly. Which is great for capital intensive businesses like the unicorns you are asking why we see less of this in Europe. Take Norway, come here with a ton of cash and make a anthropic competitor, and you are probably a fool. Taxes alone will punish such huge capital. Less so in UK though.
But what you hear less about is the huge amount of medium companies around Europe. They have their small niche in pharma, manufacturing etc. They are often highly trusted. Often highly profitable. Often keep their people longer with lower tendencies of burnout.
But would often be seen as a failure by US vcs, as they perhaps lack a giant market to grow further into. This can lead to a lower stock price then price per earning would suggest.
Nor to say that those companies don’t exist in the US. I’m just saying the entire economy is not just lifted by companies like alibaba and google.
- Railways and signalling equipment
- Container shipping
- Reinsurance
- Industrial machinery
- Wind turbine technology
- Luxury goods, luxury fashion and fast fashion
- Tourism
A big difference is that in Europe most companies are not big conglomerates. Yes everyone has heard of Siemens. But then you have tonnes of companies like WALDNER, based in a small German town with revenues of €350m, they make packaging equipment that can fill 100,000 yogurt pots per hour. Oh and they are a private company.
https://www.waldner.de/en/about-us/company/
Probably alluding to the fact that Europe owns the largest portion of the worldwide fleet.
I assume they mean the ships.
The US has ports. But they don't build civilian ships, and they don't really own ships either. The vast majority of American shipping is floated on ships owned by Europeans and built by East Asians
But of course anyone can buy and operate ships. Europe still has large shipping companies, although they are losing marketshare to Asia now, whereas the US has never been a dominant player in this area.
The US does operate some massive logistics companies that are a bit higher in the stack.
That's why it's so crazy to see Europe sabotage its shipping industry by seizing Russian ships and banning so many oil transports. That is going to result in Russia seizing European ships and the asian shipping carriers taking even more market share.
Across the board, Europe is de-industrializing.
Not everyone can operate civilian ship fleets, managing a global shipping operation is not a "pick up and do it", it requires some build up.
Truth is though none of it matters if the planet goes up in flames.
Something that distinguishes Europeans from Americans is the general level of economic security here. This is generally good for the mental and physical health of everyone involved, but it does mean that there's no hustling or grindset among the educated classes here.
Europe did not push enough in the software market, which is where the US is definitely on top. There's tons of specialized engineering companies in Europe that manufacture equipment that can't be done anywhere else. Less public coverage because it's not consumer facing, but ASML is just one example of it (who are well known publicly of course). There are obvious factors right now (e.g. war in Ukraine) that put a strain on public spending, but that's also the case for the US, and before that covid, and honestly when's the last time this has not been the case for everyone. Though the EU currently also needs to first scramble to reduce it's dependencies (especially in energy).
That's quite the statement, considering there's still more than a quarter left in 2026.
A price problem in terms of it not being worth the cost... sure.. but that's because there are little/no fabs in Europe. Lowering the price, even by magic, doesnt really seem like it would matter.
>but i don't like the expectation that governments should subsidize mega corporations profits.
To be clear they are asking the EU to kickstart chip fabrication. Which is a chicken-and-egg problem. A fab can't tool up without orders. Orders wont come without tooling. It's in the EU's interest to fabricate chips locally.
Is it though? I'd put forward that it's in the EU's interest to foster good international relationships. Countries can get away without domestic strategic industries if they can play nice with others.