If you want something to be economically viable, you should create economic incentives, reduce regulation and reglementation and let private enterprises compete.
US had an entirely different vision of the economy and private sector and that's why it succeeded in many areas.
There must be something in between these extremes on the spectrum.
Europe has spent decades and trillions on programs that do not work and produce nothing but word documents. With no sign of anyone acknowledging the poor results of these programs.
Since I can't post on this thread anymore I will edit. I am talking about what this thread is about. Misguided and poorly designed industrial development programs that Europe has wasted trillions on with nothing to show for it. Not criticising every aspect of the EU.
There’s lots of things in dire need for improvement for sure, but downright dismissing the EU as having achieved nothing is just spite and not helpful. That attitude got the Americans where they are now, and I sure don’t want to go there.
You misspelled NATO.
The diplomatic and economic bonds between the belligerents of WW1 and WW2 were very close indeed before war broke out. The post WW2 peace in Western Europe was a function of the fact that NATO did its job “Keep the Russians out, the French in and the Germans down.”
If tight economic and other links prevented war there would still bebe a country called Yugoslavia. You need either actual broad based buy in or an imperial power willing to stop people who would like to go to war from doing so. NATO keeps Bosnia-Herzegovina from collapsing and as soon as they stop it’s done. No doubt there are other obvious examples in Europe, and it’s not as if anyone thinks NATO means much without the US.
That's for sure. We should take what was proved it works and adjust it to our conditions.