I think we have different definitions of research. The things you are talking about are what I would call applications rather than research. BTW, as far as the mobile technology, the issue is primarily one of capital investment rather than technology base. In general, Europe has a much higher population density than the US, so a deployment of tech will have a larger customer base for the same coverage area. This leads to higher revenue for the same area and the ability to generate more capital leading to the fast roll-out of new tech leading to... As far as universities, that very model of university-centered development comes from the US. Almost every major university in the US does a similar thing, in areas ranging from automotive technology to zoology. In the US this dates back to World War II with the Radiation Laboratories at MIT and several univs participating in nuclear development, notably the University of Chicago.
For my work I interview a lot of CEOs of high tech companies, as well as with industry analysts and VC companies, both American and European, and they all seem to agree that while Europeans are better at research and generally inventing things, it's the Americans who are better at commercialising things. So that's where my perception comes from.
The mobile advantage that Europe enjoys is due, at least in some part, on Europe's early adpation of a standard for all of Europe. Whereas, the US simply didn't enforce one particular mobile standard over another.
Maybe i'm off base, but if having every 10 year old kid with a cell phone is the pinnacle of scientific research in the world, we're in a big mess.
I understand what you are saying, but when I look at all levels of technology, whether it's basic research that results in Nobels in Physics and Chemistry to commercial products, it just seems to me that Americans have the advantage. Despite all of the problems in the US, especially in things such as stem-cell research, we produce more research in almost every field than any other area. If you ask most research scientists where they want to work, they would say the US because of the resources available and the relative intellectual freedom at our universities and research institutions. If you look at international standards bodies, like the ITU, they are dominated by the US. I work in tech, and have worked with the ITU and other standards bodies, as well as with the US and to a lesser extent, the international research community in telecomm and computers. For everything except manufacturing, the US is the center of the universe in these areas. Europe is a major player as well, with major companies like Phillips and Siemens rivalling their American counterparts.
Forget it, Bush won't even be able to unite the US of A. Enjoy the polarization. We (Europe) can learn a lot about this election won by fear. The right should never be underestimated and recent EU/Turkey dealings have me worried that there is a big potential of similar fears in the EU population. The Turkey question will be very tricky in the future...
most of the major drug and medical research companies are ameican, and i may be going out on a limb, but i believe much of this is due to the significantly greater incentive America offers for individual inginuity than Europe. Tax rates, even for the top rate, are almost half of the standerd rate in Europe. Look at how the US economy took off when regan slashed the top tax rate by 40%.
The overall tax take in Europe is about a third higher than in the US. Significant, but hardly what you are claiming. Don't forget to add state and local taxes into your equation, btw.
Wasn't it you who said that if Americans re-elected Bush that the hate Europe has for the American government will (not unjustifiably) broaden to include the American public? After all, we had the opportunity to get rid of him and didn't. Hell, right this minute I hate the American public.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't some US stem cell researchers already moved to the UK? As to CA's funding, this is a good point. However, I think it's going to depend what restrictions, if any, are imposed on stem cell research by the new Congresss and Bush. There's not a lot of point in having $3bn in funding if what you can use the money is over restricted. Personally, I voted against that $3bn initiative. I'm all for stem cell research, but this proposition smacked too much of corporate welfare for my liking.
Im afraid fear didn't work this time. The old folks Kerry scared about SS and the young ones he scared about a draft and the minority voters that he tried to scare, well, it just didn't work.
Some thoughts... ecenomolicaly it is a draw I would say. Europe is better with some things (just look at Detroit), whereas the Us is better in some other things (like really high level researching, they are still above us boys). The bigger US Army does no good to the US, whereas the too big, but unneffective European Armies do no good to European... a modern cheap army may be the best way... Western Europe will hopefully never have an internal war again, other than the US we learned from the WWs (other than the US we suffered from both WWs). China will be just a economical threat to our nations, If i'd live in taian or kashmir I'd be worried though. Europe will propably get problems with muslimics terror, but the hatred of the islamic world will be for a long time aturned against the US, which is a (little) advantage for Europe as regards dealing with terror. Our enemies are just not that big, and we had more knowledge and experience about terrorism pre 9/11 (IRA, ETA, RAF, ...) If China will be at war with either the US, japan, EU or Russia, the other three are very likely to help against China, because they could be next. But than again, after all it would be suicide by China. They don't have the ideology to be as fanatic as they are in the muslimic world. The muslimic world will never have the technology to completely beat the US, or EU, or China, or Russia, but it will cause some pain... I don#t see the kingdoms of saudi arabia or Jodrania to survive, and if a big Arabaic nation gathers, Israel is in big trouble... But then again, EU and Us would help. bigest security problem for the EU in next 100 years is possibly poverty in africa, which may lead to a MASSIVE exodus... But chances are that we are able to deal with it, if we start cleaning up northern africa (not by force, but with €€€). SAmerica will be glad to join the EU eceonomically, as well as the AU and Russia. For AU and R the Eu is just nearer than the US, SAmerica just does not like the US... No idea what would happen with canada!
Well, I don't think any leaders bet on it as such. I don't recall any Euro leaders saying "vote Kerry". It's not like the situation 12 years ago where John Major clearly bet on Bush 41 winning the 1992 election, by providing whatever dirt on Clinton they could find from his time at Oxford. Then Major got put in the deep freeze for months after that result. Schroeder and Chriac will just have to appease Bush as best they can, eg trying to help more in areas other than Iraq, making overtures that we won't fall out again like before. What else do you want them to do? It's not as if they can go against 90+% of their populations. They're unpopular enough already!
One thing I've been meaning to ask (and not sure if it's been raised in the rest of this thread),is why the marks around 'superior'? Is there some assertion that the US social welfare system is better?
The biggest are Bayer (German), Hoffman-La Roche (French I think), and Astrazeneca (British). But still you're right, there are more major drug and medical research companies in the US. But that's just the thing: the trend is that smaller companies do all the thinking these days. That again also applies to telecom. The smaller companies have the ability to concentrate on one very specific research project. When their idea is proven viable they're quickly taken over by the big players, of course.
Contrary to popular belief I think many of them wanted Bush to win. France for example can now keep on refusing to send troops to Iraq. If Kerry had been elected and asked the French nicely for troops in the framework of building an international coalition built on respect, it would have been very difficult, almost impossible to refuse.