Indeed, I tried to get this mood across in my session but most people just don't pick up on the urgency and rather discuss the advancement of the idealistic European project (which I stand behind 200%). It's like "short term we can't do much, we have to think long-term" but then wr miss all the opportunities for actual change in an effort to show integrity.
I'm not sure I'd call it lack of ambition though. Imo there's a pragmatism that's missing. Capital market integration will take 2 decades? Lol whatever, who's gonna make it happen in 2 years then? Should we compete on model layer, evals or hardware or is it all too late? Bruv, let's do all of it. We need to cook.
Brain drain and talent spreading? Ok, who's going to build out the campaign for Zurich?
Rather than waiting for consensus and permission, Europe needs more doers that push the boundaries of what's thought to be possible. That's less a question of ambition and more a questions of ethics/social acceptance.
Yeah, thinking about this more, I think the key difference is that America tolerates more disagreement/friction and progress happens because of a certain adversarial dialectic between various actors that keep each other in check (more or less, sometimes goes badly wrong but...).
I do think some European leaders show that being adversarial can lead to more progress on a European level (both Macron and Merz seem quite edgy in a productive way).
But more directly to your point, I do think a lot of progress will hinge on private actors building stuff themsleves, without having to wait for buy-in by all the other political factions. In the process, it's still good to have some sort of progress movement that atleast celebrates those actors, and tries to inspire political folks to pass necessary reforms to assist the private sector.
As an American involved in the Progress movement, I admire your courage your courage to try to change Europe. I think us Americans will have to implement many policy reforms to keep long-term widely-shared economic growth going, but overall, I am optimistic even if the American Progress movement has little effect.
On the other hand, I am sorry to say that I am very pessimistic for Europe. I am a committed Euro-phile and lived there for three years. But I think European politicians are terrified of fundamental reform and are looking for any excuse to keep an unsustainable welfare going while Europe ages and economic growth stagnates.
In the short and medium-term, I think that Europe will have a very hard time implementing the necessary reforms as they will be very unpopular with voters.
I’m American and I live in France. My husband is French. I share the same concerns. The French seemed completely unwilling to make any adjustments to their welfare state.
I understand that it’s part of France history and the social contract but for the country to grow, some changes must be made. They also need to embrace more pro business policies.
I truly do not know what can be done in a country where people fundamentally seem to hate success .
But does the red pill entail public projects like Gaia X or the Gigafactories? That there is no European CoreWeave is more of a result of economic regulation e.g. on the capital market. My main takeaway was also that we need a political movement, but I doubt that the EU is capable of major reform outside of crises. How do we make sure thta Merz and Macron have the right bills in the drawer before the next short notice Council night session?
On the cloud stuff: Agree that Europe should strengthen bottom-up dynamism. Though I would also note that export-oriented industrial policy has empirically worked in East Asia. As far as I can tell Gaia X and Gigafactories are idiosyncratic constructions that are neither. Building datacenters depends on a range of factors like land, permitting, energy, Jensen diplomacy etc, many of which can be publicly shaped, so I wouldn't discount industrial policy per se. Haven't researched it enough to have a fixed view what's useful for what but if I were to, I would interview both neocloud start-ups as well as policymakers in countries that have successfully created domestic players like the UAE.
Indeed, I tried to get this mood across in my session but most people just don't pick up on the urgency and rather discuss the advancement of the idealistic European project (which I stand behind 200%). It's like "short term we can't do much, we have to think long-term" but then wr miss all the opportunities for actual change in an effort to show integrity.
I'm not sure I'd call it lack of ambition though. Imo there's a pragmatism that's missing. Capital market integration will take 2 decades? Lol whatever, who's gonna make it happen in 2 years then? Should we compete on model layer, evals or hardware or is it all too late? Bruv, let's do all of it. We need to cook.
Brain drain and talent spreading? Ok, who's going to build out the campaign for Zurich?
Rather than waiting for consensus and permission, Europe needs more doers that push the boundaries of what's thought to be possible. That's less a question of ambition and more a questions of ethics/social acceptance.
Yeah, thinking about this more, I think the key difference is that America tolerates more disagreement/friction and progress happens because of a certain adversarial dialectic between various actors that keep each other in check (more or less, sometimes goes badly wrong but...).
I do think some European leaders show that being adversarial can lead to more progress on a European level (both Macron and Merz seem quite edgy in a productive way).
But more directly to your point, I do think a lot of progress will hinge on private actors building stuff themsleves, without having to wait for buy-in by all the other political factions. In the process, it's still good to have some sort of progress movement that atleast celebrates those actors, and tries to inspire political folks to pass necessary reforms to assist the private sector.
As an American involved in the Progress movement, I admire your courage your courage to try to change Europe. I think us Americans will have to implement many policy reforms to keep long-term widely-shared economic growth going, but overall, I am optimistic even if the American Progress movement has little effect.
On the other hand, I am sorry to say that I am very pessimistic for Europe. I am a committed Euro-phile and lived there for three years. But I think European politicians are terrified of fundamental reform and are looking for any excuse to keep an unsustainable welfare going while Europe ages and economic growth stagnates.
In the short and medium-term, I think that Europe will have a very hard time implementing the necessary reforms as they will be very unpopular with voters.
I’m American and I live in France. My husband is French. I share the same concerns. The French seemed completely unwilling to make any adjustments to their welfare state.
I understand that it’s part of France history and the social contract but for the country to grow, some changes must be made. They also need to embrace more pro business policies.
I truly do not know what can be done in a country where people fundamentally seem to hate success .
Very sad. Paris is a fabulous city, and France has made so many great contributions to humanity. I hope that they can find a way to muddle through.
I think the conference (which I didn’t attend) had a missing mood. I.e., not showing a clearer lack of patience with the status quo.
Agree! That's what I tried to get at with the "red pill" narrative
Yep, seems totally right/apt. Let's chat more at the Progress Conference!
But does the red pill entail public projects like Gaia X or the Gigafactories? That there is no European CoreWeave is more of a result of economic regulation e.g. on the capital market. My main takeaway was also that we need a political movement, but I doubt that the EU is capable of major reform outside of crises. How do we make sure thta Merz and Macron have the right bills in the drawer before the next short notice Council night session?
On the cloud stuff: Agree that Europe should strengthen bottom-up dynamism. Though I would also note that export-oriented industrial policy has empirically worked in East Asia. As far as I can tell Gaia X and Gigafactories are idiosyncratic constructions that are neither. Building datacenters depends on a range of factors like land, permitting, energy, Jensen diplomacy etc, many of which can be publicly shaped, so I wouldn't discount industrial policy per se. Haven't researched it enough to have a fixed view what's useful for what but if I were to, I would interview both neocloud start-ups as well as policymakers in countries that have successfully created domestic players like the UAE.
"In SF houseparties people predict what year we’ll have a Dyson Sphere"
Maybe they should have a p(Dyson) in addition to a p(doom)
Also, thanks for writing!