Fines are there for good valid reason?
Rarely they change behavior of companies, because fines are still peanuts compared to profit they gain by this.. so not really getting your comment.. they are relatively so small we cannot even call them fines.
Rarely they change behavior of companies, because fines are still peanuts compared to profit they gain by this.. so not really getting your comment.. they are relatively so small we cannot even call them fines.
Empirically, we know that is not true. Some legislation embodies bad ideas.
China - alleged communists - have outperformed the EU at creating a viable software industry. Regardless of the arguments about what approaches are good and bad, there is pretty evidence that whatever "good" means, Europe is struggling to achieve it.
If anything, this could be because of the communist aspect. Companies of a certain size become entwined with the government in China. Funding isn't really a concern when the state backs you up. Similarly, but without state support, the US has Silicon Valley investors who'll always throw cash at companies with the right connections and sometimes random people with decent business ideas.
Does the EU have anything similar to grow companies?
In fact, I would argue because of the many small countries, many companies are incredibly entwined with the government. Because many of these countries only have few large companies.
I think the West loves saying 'all China suggests is because the government just finances every single company'. In reality this just doesn't seem to practically hold up. If all the companies are always losing money and have infinite money. Why are many they so good as scraping, forward looking, innovative and so on.
Its not government money that makes some of the China car makers better at software, or faster at adopting new innovations.
A contractor of Arianespace for Ariane 6 had an issue, RUAG had an issue with fairing. And the Swiss government jumped in. And this happen very often in many industries. I am not confident that all of the recent space companies in China would get the same treatment.
It doesn’t mean companies are free to just lose money. It means they can take risks and not just milk immediate profits for stock gains.
> It means they can take risks and not just milk immediate profits for stock gains.
Given how many US companies do the same and how many companies are heavily protected in Europe I fail to see this as sufficient explanation.
Sufficiently large companies are required to have a certain percent of their staff be CCP members making decisions. That also comes with money tied up in the company. That doesn’t mean every company is backed up by the government. You’re making wild straw men and getting enraged at your own argument.
And also that doesn't explain why so many initially small companies end up being successful.