[wvoch235]

The problem with the European mindset on this, is it's always involves bureaucrats taking their taxpayers money and allocating it in smarter ways than American investors who are doing it with their own money.

If that seems unlikely to work to you, then you possess critical thinking.

The US spends more on R&D (Private and Public) than the next 5 countries combined. Public research is and since the 70s has been a small fraction of research spending in the US. That's why their companies actually innovate.

If Europe doesn't change the inventive structures that are preventing investment in R&D, no amount of government money is going to fill that void...

[rainsford]

The problem with relying exclusively on private investors to fund research is that the incentives steer investment towards research that seems likely to deliver a return on investment. This is fine for driving incremental development on presumably marketable ideas with short time horizons, but it's absolutely terrible for supporting the kind of foundational work that lacks obvious application on day 1 but is nevertheless essential to real innovation.

Private companies used to understand and value this and fund relatively open-ended research arms without the requirement to deliver immediate investor value. As investors have become more and more myopic, government funding has been essential to keep foundational research alive.

As just one example, think about the Large Hadron Collider. It's pretty expensive with no immediate commercial application, no ROI focused private investor in the world would support it. But it's an essential tool for conducting research into the very foundations of physical existence with who knows what implications for human progress. I'm good with the "European mindset" approach to those kinds of problems since private investors would certain drop the ball if left up to them.

[enaaem]

Europe cannot pool infinite investors money because of the fractured capital market. It's funny enough actually the lack of EU regulation that causes this. Because you get 27 different regulatory bodies, that makes cross country investments much more complicated.

That being said, I find Europe's research and industrial capacity to be underrated. Europe is very competitive in industries like cars and tooling. You don't really see American cars in Asia, but still tons of European luxury cars. Europe does well in boring tech that does not receive infinite VC money.

[overfeed]

> than American investors who are doing it with their own money

American investors prefer spending other people's money too, they just happen to capture most of the returns, and the public gets just enough dregs through their 401k or pension funds to keep the cycle going.

[nextos]

Also European Academia is very hierarchical. The US has a much healthier proportion of early career faculty positions, which you can apply to straight after your PhD or a postdoc.

IMHO, this creates some strange dynamics and doesn't favor new ideas.

[throwoutway]

DARPA might be an exception to that rule. I've always been inspired by dARPA