pull down to refresh

Europeans had to be realistic, Lagarde told a panel discussion. “We are now getting this huge, big push, because another big player in the global economy is organising things in a different way, and is threatening some of the partners and the players with which that country was used to operate.”
Forecasts from the IMF this month sharply upgraded economic prospects for the US this year, predicting 2.7 per cent growth, far above the Eurozone’s predicted 1 per cent expansion. 
The currency area’s biggest economy, Germany, has experienced two years of contraction and is forecast to expand by just 0.3 per cent this year, the fund said. Meanwhile the US took a record share of cross-border greenfield investment projects in the 12 months to November, according to preliminary data from fDI Markets, an FT-owned company.
[..]
But European officials struggled to project that positive message to executives in the Swiss resort. “The sentiment here is just how negative European CEOs are on Europe,” said the US banking executive. “There is a stark contrast to the US, where it is all about animal spirits and euphoria.” 
Asked if the election of Trump represented a wake-up call for Europe, Lagarde replied: “I respectfully think that it does.” 
A negative Lagarde... that's not very usual. Must be really dire then...
Europe needs to course correct badly. It's already fallen to about half the prosperity level of the US and the gap continues to grow.
reply
prosperity level of the US
What metric is usually used to define the prosperity level?
reply
Usually, GDP per capita is used.
That measure has an abundance of known problems, but it has the advantage of being measured fairly consistently everywhere and over time.
reply
I see. It's good to have something consistent.
Does this metric get skewed by the big FAANG-style companies, or is the impact small? Probably talking out of my ass here, but is there some kind of "average" versus "median" effect here? As I mentioned in another comment, seems like European regulations are mostly damaging to the development of super-big companies, but not necessarily to the proliferation of small companies that can benefit from subsidies that are supposed to stimulate innovation. Subsidies themselves have lots of other known problems, including inefficient allocation of resources, but just trying to see things from a different angle today.
reply
Yeah, long right tails would skew GDP per capita.
However, other metrics tend to tell the same story. Another popular one is household income, which is also widely available and allows comparisons at medians or other percentiles.
reply
Got it. I'll research it a bit more. Feels like I'm just theorizing without much fundamental knowledge.
A final question, are there metrics that take into account intangible benefits such as healthcare, pension, etc that may partially compensate for the lower incomes (and/or higher taxation reducing net income) in Europe when compared to the US?
Putting aside again personal beliefs in terms of the morality of taxation, efficient use of resources, etc. And the likely lack of sustainability of the social system the way it has existed in Europe for decades.
reply
GDP based metrics are going to assume those services are worth as much as they cost. That's definitely wrong, and everyone knows it's wrong, but you have to do something to account for it.
There are also different ways of comparing economies. The crudest is to use the exchange rates between their currencies to make the figures comparable. However, there's something called purchasing power parity (PPP) that attempts to account for differences in how much things cost locally. I don't know how PPP adjusts for government provided services, though: it's usually talked about as adjusting for market goods and services that aren't exportable or importable.
There are broader metrics that are most often used to describe developing economies. The HDI (Human Development Index) is one of the most common. It mushes together income, life expectancy, and education.
reply
Plenty of keywords for me to look into. Thank you for taking the time.
33 sats \ 4 replies \ @Riberet 8h
So many years of doing things wrong have their consequences, innovation in Europe is 0, they focus more on regulating everything than on supporting innovation and production, the result is obvious.
reply
I think it's a bit more nuanced.
I recently talked to 2 friends in Europe. One has joined a startup in Spain, focusing on AI stuff. The other one has started his own startup in Belgium, and they are thriving. It's a highly specialized material science company.
They both agree that it's nearly impossible to make a FAANG-style company in Europe these days. Indeed, due to regulations. However, both of them think that's a good thing. And I can follow them in that, as I don't think companies that are the size of Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, and Netflix (?) are a net positive to society. Not because the products they offer are useless (they aren't, most people use them daily), but because they are too big to fail, are walled gardens that kill any competition, and have too much influence in politics.
They told me both their companies benefit a lot from government programs to start a company without too much risk for the founders (one can argue that's a good thing because Silicon Valley hustle culture leads to many a burnout, one can also argue that's a bad thing as it puts less pressure to succeed), while at the same time, being forced to become profitable as, believe it or not, government funding is not infinite.
Not saying everything is rosy (it isn't, it's even pretty bad these days, as illustrated by the article I shared), but innovation and support for production are available. One just has to know the ropes on how to get it.
They are of course biased as they are in successful startups.
We should have an ~AMA with the guys from ACINQ, and ask them how they see the current environment in France to develop their LN company. Or maybe someone from Ledger?~~
Just putting this as a counterweight to the mostly negative sentiment one gets when reading Korean or US media reporting on Europe.
EDIT: your name sounds French... you might have boot-on-the-grounds insights to share. I'll be curious to hear them.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @aljaz 6h
Of course you can find narrow examples where you can milk the EU/local subsidies and it works out. If you know how to play the system and are willing to struggle through the endless paperwork and other nonsense.
But keep in mind that employment laws fuck you over, taxation fucks you over and regulation fucks you over. Employment laws are complicated and archaic, completely nonsensical for dynamic startups or small companies. Every jurisdiction has its own tricks so hiring people from 3 different countries is an endless nightmare of paperwork and legal advise.
I've had companies on 3 different continents and while they all suck EU is by far the most restrictive and makes the least sense.
reply
106 sats \ 1 reply \ @Riberet 8h
Thank you for your reflections, it is true that innovation is still possible, and there are people who achieve it, but others give up and go where they have more benefits in terms of regulation and taxation, in the end, a lot of talent is leaving Europe, and I think that is partly a big problem.
reply
For sure. I know of a few people who left Europe for the US looking for greener pastures. Mostly because of the freedom that comes from having very little regulations and not much taxation.
One of them did so, had some great experience there learning how the startup world works, and came back a few years back to Europe where he started a company that is sending satellites into space. They are also doing pretty well.
Finally, just remembered another guy who's a friend of some of my friends who started an IT company. I checked, and his net worth is now 2.8 billion USD according to Forbes.
Just triggers me when I see someone as useless as Lagarde pretending to represent the actual productive people I've met in Europe.
reply