Depending on who you ask, one system is wildly better than the other, but at the end of they day they are just different systems with different tradeoffs.
I disagree: the EU system broadly is there to support _the incumbants_
"Regulatory capture" is the less kind way to put it.
This probably also has a lot to do with it's much tighter market integration than the EU, although they seem to be finally addressing that issue with the 28th regime.
A popular theory of Europe's historic economic outperformance relative to the rest of the world, leading up to the industrial revolution, relies on competitive market theory: constant warfare spurring innovation, as well as relatively free movement of the best and brightest to seek greener pastures elsewhere on the continent. These days, the most ambitious Europeans tend to move to America to raise money and find talent, and it seems many EU countries are finally waking up to the fact that they need to do better to support entrepreneurship.
I would characterize it rather that the US is pro-business and pro-consumer, but somewhat anti-average worker.
Apple is another good example. Their base warranty is two years in the EU versus one year in the US, and there’s additional protection on top in many EU countries that extends it to the expected life of the product, in some cases as long as 5-6 years.
And again, all of these are backed up by the law, not just a policy that the company can revoke or decide not to enforce.
We can argue about the consumer friendliness of the regulations in the EU but they also add demonstrably to the cost of tech products (and likely other categories).
In general though, culturally, the US is much more "the customer is always right", whereas in the EU, it's considered a hassle to cater to customers that much. This mentality translates across the economy as a whole.
At least that's in my experience of being American and living in the EU for the last 10 years.
Maybe the ones voluntarily offered by companies, but not the legal ones.
The better policies given by US companies is also likely driven by competition, so by definition they wouldn't be something that a government regulation could accomplish (other than to incentivize more competition.)
Although, this is rapidly changing. Places like California are putting in similar regulatory barriers and excessive minimum taxation.
The issue in question is a Germanic system, not an EU one. Outside of Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, most EU countries are far more sensible with capitalization requirements.
In Finland forming a non listed stock company is 240€ in fees without any requirement for capital/assets.
I think Estonia is even cheaper.
Public limited liability company (Oyj) still has 80 000€ capital requirement.
