United States Corrupt Twattery

[Deebs]

The ones behind him are party loyalists, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're paid to stand there looking gormless.

It's like a Reform "press conference" - nearly all the audience for those, barring the legit media presence, is Reform party members who aren't afraid to jeer at questions they don't like.

He even had to comment on one of the rabid/gormless who wore some weird designed suit (don't ask cannot remember) and they all went mad like he was speaking words that would grant immortality, untold riches and be the envy of the world all for pointing out some twat in the audience.

 

[Scouse]

Made in Europe?

‘Made in Europe’ law threatens UK plans for reset with EU

Government sources say legislation aimed at China poses a risk to British businesses and must be addressed

www.theguardian.com

Sounds like a regionally protectionist agenda similar to the American agenda.

Mechanism is different, but intended outcomes are similar.

 

[Ormorof]

I agree all it does is force folks outside the EU to innovate to compete and keeps stale companies rolling

Look at what’s happening in AI, denied access to powerful hardware the new open weight models are racing ahead from China

 

[DaGaffer]

Made in Europe?

‘Made in Europe’ law threatens UK plans for reset with EU

Government sources say legislation aimed at China poses a risk to British businesses and must be addressed

www.theguardian.com

Sounds like a regionally protectionist agenda similar to the American agenda.

Mechanism is different, but intended outcomes are similar.

And...? The EU has always been protectionist, look at the CAP for the best evidence of that, and frankly the EU needs to develop domestic industries that are sorely lacking (mainly in tech). The trick is to be targeted about it though, as this is, because it's aimed at public-sector procurement, not Trump-style blunt instruments.

 

[BloodOmen]

View attachment aLnqgrv_460svvp9.webm

 

[Scouse]

And...? The EU has always been protectionist, look at the CAP for the best evidence of that, and frankly the EU needs to develop domestic industries that are sorely lacking (mainly in tech). The trick is to be targeted about it though, as this is, because it's aimed at public-sector procurement, not Trump-style blunt instruments.

Yep. Don't disagree (to a point).

It's also got the benefit of being more democratically accountable, rather than unilateral tariff kyboshing.

However, the EU's approach comes with massive regulatory burden and overhead - which makes me wonder, is that part of the reason America remains way more competitive?

Regulatory burden.

It's a PITA, both in terms of cost but also intellectual time and work to ensure regulations are complied with. Then there's audit overheads, constant management scrambling etc etc. It'll require enitre supply chain reorganisation. It's a fucking nightmare, frankly. A real burden.

America has gone "this is more expensive". Which, whilst a cost issue is really simple to work with - a % change on a spreadsheet requiring a build or buy decision (which get made anyway). It doesn't require reams of people to deal with - any business fallout gets dealt with in your existing processes.

Gross simplification. But I think it's fair.

 

[DaGaffer]

Yep. Don't disagree (to a point).

It's also got the benefit of being more democratically accountable, rather than unilateral tariff kyboshing.

However, the EU's approach comes with massive regulatory burden and overhead - which makes me wonder, is that part of the reason America remains way more competitive?

Regulatory burden.

It's a PITA, both in terms of cost but also intellectual time and work to ensure regulations are complied with. Then there's audit overheads, constant management scrambling etc etc. It'll require enitre supply chain reorganisation. It's a fucking nightmare, frankly. A real burden.

America has gone "this is more expensive". Which, whilst a cost issue is really simple to work with - a % change on a spreadsheet requiring a build or buy decision (which get made anyway). It doesn't require reams of people to deal with - any business fallout gets dealt with in your existing processes.

Gross simplification. But I think it's fair.

The US has exactly the same restrictions on "buying foreign" for large parts of it's public sector, especially defence. The workaround is foreign manufacturers set up in the US or have a US partner as lead contractor. This has been a thing for decades.

Also "regulatory burden" has a corollary, cross-border simplification. Look at what happened post-Brexit when the UK decided to bin EU regulation and replace everything; it all fell apart pretty quickly, and smaller countries (which includes the UK) are better off inside a framework that's shared than going it alone and still having to engage with external frameworks anyway. Unless you're of the extreme libertarian zero-regulation bent (in which case, please don't set up your business anywhere near me) then you're always going to have to live with regulation anyway, better to turn it into an advantage.

 

[Scouse]

Totally agree in the brexit-style points, but you're sidestepping a bit here

The debate isn't whether rules should exist, but the burden they place - and the EU has acknowledged the competetive drag their regulatory regime has.

US regulatory environment generally operates on a post-market enforcement or risk-tolerant model, allowing rapid scaling and technological deployment. The EU model heavily emphasizes pre-market precaution and multi-layered compliance reporting.

It's not the only reason the US is more competetive/has better standards of living - they have structural advantages. But it's some of it.

🤷

Regardless, my original point was comparative around equivalence - not a moral judgement of which is better