"Get bankrolled by the state at the state's discretion until they get what they want, even if they need to burn $1B to get $1M of value"
and in Europe it's
"Just buy it from the US or China".
Delete all American software, American defense, American energy, and Chinese hardware from the EU tomorrow. That's the deep-seated unease that keeps EU leaders up at night. Europe needs to be doing 3-4% GDP growth annually and have a globally competitive top to bottom tech an defense industry, and it needs that years ago.
The problem is that the EU needs to become more like the US to do this, and for people who grew up under the protective overhang of the soviet collapse, this is mostly unthinkable. Just like the US not bankrolling half of Ukraine's defense would be unthinkable...
This is outdated. Look at page 4 of this report for instance: https://www.kielinstitut.de/publications/europe-steps-up-ukr...
Their data is not perfect as they rely on public sources, and some governments are more transparent than others, but the reality is that US funding all but vanished in 2025.
Back to the topic, there is also a pattern of promising European startups being bought by wealthy USA incumbent companies. This is also happening to established compagnies: see ARM, Alstom Power, etc. As Europe de-couples from the USA in the current context, I suspect (and hope) that such acquisitions will come under more regulatory scrutiny.
> That's why euro leaders have been kowtowing to Trump despite him being a deranged lunatic.
Less to do with economy, more with security. Europe still needs a credible deterrent against Russia, and the US is still its best bet.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fl...
If that's how it worked, they wouldn't lead in anything, they'd be bankrupt already. They burn state money like VCs burn cash. DeepSeek, Alibaba, Tencent, Xiaomi, Huawei, etc., disprove your point.
Ghost cities, empty high speed rail lines, solar cells being mass produced at a loss.
All these things also produced end products the state wanted, no doubt. But the capital allocation strategy is basically a "throw all the money the leader gives in that direction until the leader says stop".
> A heavily bureaucratic system of bureaucrats incentivized to spend massively to boost their own appearance, and cover up losses/inefficiencies.
In China, if you want to move up politically, you generally need to show results, meaning the province or area you govern is expected to deliver measurable performance (even if politics and connections still matter too). In that sense, you could argue it's more performance driven in some respects than the US.
EVs and solar were clear priorities, and China has been very successful at scaling both and driving costs down. Domestic competition has been so intense (especially in EVs) that margins have gotten extremely thin, and officials have recently signaled they want to curb "irrational" price wars.
> Ghost cities
Sure, some exist, but many of the developments that were circulated online years ago have filled in over time. That said, there's no question a lot of projects stalled or collapsed during the property downturn, especially after China Evergrande and other developers ran into trouble.
> empty high speed rail lines,
I can't speak to every route, but overall the high speed rail network is heavily used. When I traveled in China, it was excellent and extremely extensive. Some lines and stations likely see weaker demand than others, but the idea that it's broadly "empty" doesn't match reality.
> solar cells being mass produced at a loss
With overcapacity and price wars, many firms have faced serious margin pressure and losses though that doesn't mean every producer is losing money on every panel.
In the end, the real question is whether the capital allocation is efficient enough for citizens to benefit and for the country to remain competitive. Empirically, the answer looks closer to yes in industry and infrastructure, while real estate has been a major exception, with real costs and inefficiencies.
Giant corporations control everything, even government laws, regulations, and policies. They will buy up any competition, patent themselves toward a moat, squash competition they don't want to buy, etc.
Venture captialism doesn't care about true value or some actual addition to society. It's a giant grift just to make more money from money. They chase every trend and hype train ad nauseum. It was self-driving cars, then cryptocurrencies/blockchain, and now gen AI. The vast majority of these companies have no value to society or long-term innovation.
The government invests in areas, but a huge amount of it goes to the black hole of defense contractors. And academic institutions in the U.S. are incredibly wasteful with money and spend all their time trying to fundraise money at the same time.
Just the entire system is inefficient and effectively broken.
For example, YC announced calls for climate tech a few years ago: https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/rfs-climatetech. Where did that go? I looked up YC companies in the climate space (https://www.ycombinator.com/companies?batch=Summer%202026&ba...), and there's only 22 companies out of the several thousand YC companies. So where's the value? Most of the companies aren't hiring and just seem like vaporware. And if you look at the leadership, almost all of them are serial VC/startup people and not actual innovators, experts, or professionals.
Step 1, find something to innovate on, sell the promise of it to investors. Step 2, build a prototype or worst case, build it for real and start generating income from your truly innovate and unique product. Step 3, get acquired by a large company and then shut down because your product competed with theirs.
End result, general public possibly benefited from your innovation, but in the long run, it was temporary.
Maybe the incentives would be better if it were harder for large companies to acquire small ones? If the path to riches where driven primarily by delivering value to customers. Would love to hear other's opinions on this.