Let's be fair here, the GP is comparing this to the complexity of other bureaucracy in Germany. In that context this does sound easy, e.g. here's how you form a GmbH: https://major-grooves.medium.com/just-how-complicated-could-...

    > Snark aside, this chart makes total sense
    > to me now: https://i.redd.it/fxks3skmvt4e1.png

E.g. Booking.com isn't there because it's now ... an American company on paper, but it was started in Europe, has most of its operations there, and (last I checked) Europe was its most important market.

But because the US stock market and US capital dominates globally, companies like that tend to be sold to a US company, and become American on paper. But that financial arrangement doesn't really reflect the overall state of European innovation.

Similarly, there's countless European startups that would have probably had a NASDAQ listing if they'd been US-based, but were instead sold to some of the larger European incumbents in their sector.

The overall amount of innovation delivered to consumers etc. might be the same, so that's more of an artifact of how capital flows in the US v.s. the EU generally.

The overall amount of innovation is absolutely not the same, you can easily compare productivity growth in both regions to see the EU is also lagging there.

Also, the chart does include companies that are European headquartered (like Spotify) unless I’m mistaken.

Even if it didn’t though, don’t you think it’s a problem that a group of 600 million people cant form an attractive enough capital market such that its companies wouldn’t need to go abroad to a group of 300 million people to go public?

This is the weak complacency I’m talking about, as someone living in Europe it’s maddening.