Oh boy, try looking outside America. The US is still the shining example of how to do things. Most of the world, even in Europe, are decades behind.
The way to do that is to avoid making grandiose claims on the large topic and instead make more specific statements including good information. Basically: less sugar more fibre.
Btw, for any avoidance of doubt (because unf, you need to say this kind of thing on here otherwise the neckbeards will get triggered): I have postgrad qualification in studying this (economic history/ipe), I have studied this for most of my adult life, and I have practical knowledge of this analysing companies in Europe and US when I worked as an equity analyst. If you think I said anything subjective or controversial, you shouldn't be correcting other people. Keep doing God's work.
US housing also extremely efficient for filtering unwanted people out of populated areas. Europeans could stand to learn a thing or two from that (although I've heard London is doing a good job of emulating us.)
In the UK, there are no new houses at all in most cities and developers aren't allowed to build new ones because of planning regulation (designed by people who already have houses in that area). Also, remember that the UK is a small island with a fairly large amount of people on it (and remember that population density numbers are skewed by Scotland which is the same size as England but has 7% of the population)...that kind of thing isn't obvious when you live somewhere with infinite land.
Pointing to one or two things and saying: "Oh this is so terrible, we need to knock it all down" is not a smart approach. Most European countries have experimented with this (the UK went bankrupt doing this), it isn't a good idea (particularly when you have a system that is already the most successful).
Only outside the East Coast and California metro areas.
Except for the people who actually live in CA. They all want to live in Oregon, Colorado or Texas.
I might ask you to try your own advice. By what metric is Europe decades behind?
Others factors vary by country but: regulations on labour, regulations on business formation, regulations/subsidies limiting competition, poor/non-existent capital markets, corporatist industrial policies (i.e. Germany where you have large employers controlling the state and determining policy), regressive tax systems, trade unions (in some areas they work very well, in others they don't e.g. UK where you have a major political party that is controlled by trade unions).
I think one important point too: the UK is very bad as well. It is often held up the nation that is closest to the US and this is definitely true in many areas - progressive tax system, low regulations, strong capital markets - but in terms of results it isn't even in the same ballpark. Management quality is a large part of this story (if you can find it online, there is a lot of research on productivity and management quality in the UK).
This doesn't mean that every country is poor - Netherlands and Denmark, in particular, do some things very well - but is the whole area anywhere close to the US? No.
The general difference is, imo, a more meritocratic society (ref the point above) but also a far deeper understanding of a business and what it is for (in the UK, most people who run businesses have no idea...although it is rarer now, I have talked to CEOs of publicly-listed billion pound companies who have no idea how to measure capital in their business, no idea how to measure returns or even what those measures mean...it is a clown show).
The latter is a function of MBA training (you can get all this info yourself btw by just reading), lower share of family-owned businesses (this is a correlated factor, family-owned businesses in the US actually tend to be very well run...in Europe, they are far worse), and the importance of capital markets (in somewhere like Germany, all you need to do is impress your banker, most German bankers are clueless, and they will lend to you even if your business in insolvent...unsurprisingly, Germany's banking sector now looks insolvent so that process is inefficient...capital markets don't always work well but they impose far more discipline).
Btw, there is a lot of research on this if you Google. Which I am sure is far more insightful than my random anecdotes and generalisations.
The family management stuff should be easy to find but - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092911990... - is an example.
He must be taking pride in the fact that managers grind employees into dust in the US...US managers have overseen the removal of employee benefits like health insurance and pensions, managers have kept worker wages stagnant decade after decade...meanwhile worker efficiency is at record highs, profits are at at record highs, executive compensation is at all time highs, and there has never been a wider gap in executive compensation vs employee compensation.
It's almost as if there are two ways to look at the economy of a country: one looks strictly at how the economy benefits the owners (not sure what the right word here is but I mean Bezos' of the America) and the other looks at the benefit the economy provides to the rest of the people.
The reason you are having this issue is precisely because you are thinking in terms of your two ways: a gain for one group can only come at the expense of another. Ironically, the reason the US is successful (and the reason why some countries in Europe are successful) is because this isn't true. If you think this is true of the US, you have not seen a society where there is actually true (you are just angry because you think everyone should suffer as much as you...unf, this is a common aspect of human nature).
Btw, Americans rarely understand the problems that come with other health systems. I am in the UK, I spoke to someone yesterday who has severe mental health problems and they are on a range of drugs...a couple of weeks ago, they turned up to the pharmacy...no drugs. No explanation. Nothing. No drugs. We don't have them. You will have to stop using them. Why? Drug shortages, this happens in the UK because the NHS can't afford to pay the same prices as other countries and the UK market is tiny so we get shortages when prices rise. And some expensive drugs just aren't provided at all. If you have a rare type of cancer, no drugs (we have one of the worst records for cancer survival amongst developed countries). If you have a rare type of epilepsy, no drugs. It is important to actually do the research and look at these issues properly rather than the usual "hurr, bad thing happen...must be dis" (I have a relative with such a condition, the "policy" of the NHS is not to treat her...that is a quote from a doctor, it isn't the policy of the NHS to cure a human being).
Is it something along the axes of innovation, efficiency, or profitability?
Keeping in mind that the article we're discussing already frames the discussion as (paraphrasing): US management and boards are great at their job, but are the assumptions behind corporate governance/stakeholding correct?