US has been protectionist forever. Even in the very low (good!) tariff rates under the WTO, ownership rules and safety (plus "safety") regulations acted as protection systems. Now, the US is afar from being the only country to have done this, but in the US they have chosen another layer that most successful countries have abandoned: national champions and cartel.

The EU, for all its faults, is a far more competetive environment than the US and has been for decades. Air travel, telecoms, and banking are far more competetive than the US. The US favors cartel systems so that there are a small number of airlines, telecom providers, foor companies, etc. Strict competition rules make things like credit cards much cheaper (no "points" etc because there's no money to fund them). So all those products are much cheaper in the EU than in the US and more dynamic too.

These higher prices make the GDP look bigger and the stock market too: in the EU that extorted money is returned as a consumer surplus.

>The EU, for all its faults, is a far more competetive environment than the US and has been for decades. Air travel, telecoms, and banking are far more competetive than the US.

You might argue this for airlines, given how Southwest has gone upmarket in the US while the likes of Ryanair and Easyjet haven't in Europe. But banking? No. The Big Four US banks have 50% of the market, while their Dutch, British, and Spanish equivalents (for example) have 70%.

As for telecom, the US just moved to three mobile carriers from four with 97% of the market, but that's hardly different from their Big Three or Four equivalents in European countries, all with ~90% of the market. Further, in yet another example of nature abhorring a vacuum, a) US cable carriers are seeing good growth in mobile as part of bundled subscriptions, and b) Starlink may soon offer a fourth national network.

As for prices, well, my $25 tax-inclusive Sprint/T-Mobile subscription for three unlimited mobile lines laughs at all the peons out there denied such wonders. But for everyone else, there is always the option of Mint or US Mobile or Visible for $25 monthly unlimited plans, all quite competitive against European MVNO counterparts, all offering coverage from Honolulu to Key West, Anchorage to El Paso.

>Strict competition rules make things like credit cards much cheaper (no "points" etc because there's no money to fund them).

Yes, I really hate earning 2-5% cashback on every purchase made with my personal and business cards.

>national champions and cartel

In what way are the Big Four US banks, or Big Three US carriers, "national champions" akin to the European nationalized days of yore, with the likes of Bull, British Telecom, etc.? And no, the US taking a 10% share of Intel is not the same thing as France assembling Groupe Bull, or Britain assembling ICL or BAe.

>These higher prices make the GDP look bigger and the stock market too: in the EU that extorted money is returned as a consumer surplus.

Ah yes, the days of yore, when (say) British Telecom and its fellow European equivalents were able to offer world-leading services at world-leading prices while returning a "consumer surplus" (whatever that is). Oh, wait.

PS - If you want to gripe about cartels, look north of the 49th. Canada's Big Five banks have 90% of the market, and Big Three carriers are so dominant—without offering niceties like $25 unlimited nationwide plans to all—that long ago they gained the "Robelus" nickname.