3 ms·

EU doesn't have top down control, in fact EU has very little control over anything and that's why its ineffective in its current form despite having enormous we

by mrtksn 1y ago

EU doesn't have top down control, in fact EU has very little control over anything and that's why its ineffective in its current form despite having enormous wealth as a block. All these initiative this initiative that are, IMHO, just political FOMO and I don't expect them to amount to much. EU doesn't have the capacity to plan stuff, even under grave danger from the war in Ukraine EU barely coordinates building some bombs. EU is able to bite only when each country is coordinated well enough to implement some laws, i.e. GDPR thing bites through the regulators of each country and not through EU. If EU eventually becomes a state then thing can change but thats not the case at the moment. EU is not a communist state and doesn't have a top down planning, its a coordination centre for 27 free market countries and its up to the EU capitalist and engineers to come up with technology and investment. They actually do, that's why EU is huge exporter of stuff. Believe it or not, there's more in this world than coding, there are all kinds of engineers that deal with atoms and electricity. However the "tech" doesn't flourish in Europe because doesn't make economic sense. US has full access to EU markets, they already have the know how and capital concentration, so why bother to re-invent the wheel in EU? Just go do it in US or do work for the US companies cementing their position even further. US can afford not to have much regulations over the "tech" because they have the HQs and all the important people in SV. The moment some company that's not from US becomes big they take it down. TikTok for example, they forced a sale to fking Oracle, US doesn't allow foreign communications on its land. Its a semi-open knowledge that US government is working with those "tech" companies to control its own population and interests. I don't know, if the US way of doing this is the better one, maybe EU should just force all the US "tech" companies to sell to EU owners just like with TikTok. Then get rid of all these regulations and just summon the local people when things go bad, like the "wrong" ideas spread like the way it happened on TikTik with Israel-Palestine conflict. The US way is like, oh you are not cooperating and not pushing the right agenda? Oh that's fine but too bad the new employment rules will hurt you and you can forget about this datacenter permit thing.

Xelbair 1y ago
I'm not saying they have top-down control. I'm saying they are trying top-down initiatives - the difference is subtle but important. This is about attitude and how attempts are made - not how successful they are at it. This isn't central planning - this is just plan ineptitude that's sabotaged by inter-country conflicts of interests, with extremely bloated beaurocracy - sometimes just to have enough representation from each party. EU is stuck between worst of both worlds, and i don't see anything changing for better in here without a shift - either towards more looser union akin to trade union(original idea) or a federation.
- mrtksn 1y ago
  They aren't try, they don't have tools to even try doing these things. But I agree, it needs to shift to a new format. Ideally federation because as we see with Greenland and Switzerland being a small independent country comes with significant risks in this new world order.
  - Xelbair 1y ago
    Personally i would prefer trade union, as EU countries have shown themselves already incapable of offering support in case of any real threat due to conflicting interests, and federation would most likely end up being run by Germany/France duopoly. also look at energy and AI initiatives for examples of top down initiatives. In most non-western EU countries the only realistic way to get a tech startup going is via EU grant process which is extremely top down with keywords they want for specific year, and basically prevents any form of pivoting as a business. It's not some top brass of party, soviet style, making top-down decisions. Its the whole system that's designed to operate that way - bureaucrats here and there incentivized to do so, committee here and there setting up guidelines for results. what they should do is to setup a framework in which results emerge.
    - mrtksn 1y ago
      Whatever it becomes, IMHO it needs to have much more clear set of responsibilities and adequate tools to fulfill those duties. Currently everything is too patchy, the currency the passport the agencies like ESA, the trade barriers within itself - everything needs a re-do in the integration or scaling down the scope.
mk89 1y ago
Coordination center? We have hundreds of unelected people who make rules for countries to determine what they must do, and if not, they need to suck it up and pay huge fines. How is that a coordinator? Can you vote for the EU government? You can only vote for the EU parliament, a bunch of relatively useless people. The real power, the EU commission, is a delegation of a delegation of a delegation of Democracy. > "Why bother and reinventing the wheel?" Because these are strategic technologies. You can minimize or criticize it all you want, but look at how Amazon has changed entirely the way e-commerce is done. Without even mentioning AWS or similar.
- mahkeiro 1y ago
  Oh really the same usual bullshit about EU? Can you tell me who is voting for a French or UK prime minister or a German chancellor? Who is voting for the federal council member in Switzerland? Yeah all this countries are governed by unelected people like the EU… EU commission is confirmed by the EU parliament in the same as most of the executive of the EU countries.
  - mk89 1y ago
    Uh? In Germany people vote for the parties, and then the Bundespresident "randomly" picks the chancellor: the person that throughout the campaign/pre-election period mentioned everywhere on tv and in the news "I want to be the chancellor, because ...". At the same time, it's (again) "randomly" the person belonging to the party who won with the most votes. Then the Bundestag has to assess whether the President chose really properly and randomly this person: was it actually the person who belongs to the party who won the most votes and that said throughout the campaign "I want to be the chancellor" or did the President play a trick on us? Most of the times, they are indeed the person that screamed the loudest throughout the campaign. So it matches. AFAIK it never happened that the President actually randomly picked someone else. Literally everyone knows who is the "chancellor candidate" in case their party reaches the majority. OK, the President could play a trick, but concretely this never happens, so it's good enough for most people. Now, go and tell the people who voted for CSU / Weber Spitzenkandidat and got Von Der Leyen instead ;)

by mrtksn 1y ago

Xelbair 1y ago

I'm not saying they have top-down control. I'm saying they are trying top-down initiatives - the difference is subtle but important. This is about attitude and how attempts are made - not how successful they are at it. This isn't central planning - this is just plan ineptitude that's sabotaged by inter-country conflicts of interests, with extremely bloated beaurocracy - sometimes just to have enough representation from each party. EU is stuck between worst of both worlds, and i don't see anything changing for better in here without a shift - either towards more looser union akin to trade union(original idea) or a federation.

mrtksn 1y ago
They aren't try, they don't have tools to even try doing these things. But I agree, it needs to shift to a new format. Ideally federation because as we see with Greenland and Switzerland being a small independent country comes with significant risks in this new world order.
- Xelbair 1y ago
  Personally i would prefer trade union, as EU countries have shown themselves already incapable of offering support in case of any real threat due to conflicting interests, and federation would most likely end up being run by Germany/France duopoly. also look at energy and AI initiatives for examples of top down initiatives. In most non-western EU countries the only realistic way to get a tech startup going is via EU grant process which is extremely top down with keywords they want for specific year, and basically prevents any form of pivoting as a business. It's not some top brass of party, soviet style, making top-down decisions. Its the whole system that's designed to operate that way - bureaucrats here and there incentivized to do so, committee here and there setting up guidelines for results. what they should do is to setup a framework in which results emerge.
  - mrtksn 1y ago
    Whatever it becomes, IMHO it needs to have much more clear set of responsibilities and adequate tools to fulfill those duties. Currently everything is too patchy, the currency the passport the agencies like ESA, the trade barriers within itself - everything needs a re-do in the integration or scaling down the scope.

mk89 1y ago

Coordination center? We have hundreds of unelected people who make rules for countries to determine what they must do, and if not, they need to suck it up and pay huge fines. How is that a coordinator? Can you vote for the EU government? You can only vote for the EU parliament, a bunch of relatively useless people. The real power, the EU commission, is a delegation of a delegation of a delegation of Democracy. > "Why bother and reinventing the wheel?" Because these are strategic technologies. You can minimize or criticize it all you want, but look at how Amazon has changed entirely the way e-commerce is done. Without even mentioning AWS or similar.

mahkeiro 1y ago
Oh really the same usual bullshit about EU? Can you tell me who is voting for a French or UK prime minister or a German chancellor? Who is voting for the federal council member in Switzerland? Yeah all this countries are governed by unelected people like the EU… EU commission is confirmed by the EU parliament in the same as most of the executive of the EU countries.
- mk89 1y ago
  Uh? In Germany people vote for the parties, and then the Bundespresident "randomly" picks the chancellor: the person that throughout the campaign/pre-election period mentioned everywhere on tv and in the news "I want to be the chancellor, because ...". At the same time, it's (again) "randomly" the person belonging to the party who won with the most votes. Then the Bundestag has to assess whether the President chose really properly and randomly this person: was it actually the person who belongs to the party who won the most votes and that said throughout the campaign "I want to be the chancellor" or did the President play a trick on us? Most of the times, they are indeed the person that screamed the loudest throughout the campaign. So it matches. AFAIK it never happened that the President actually randomly picked someone else. Literally everyone knows who is the "chancellor candidate" in case their party reaches the majority. OK, the President could play a trick, but concretely this never happens, so it's good enough for most people. Now, go and tell the people who voted for CSU / Weber Spitzenkandidat and got Von Der Leyen instead ;)