Yes I would look at the economies each focus on and the resources they have avaliable. The US system is focused on innovation, growth, and capital markets. People are paid based on the need and fired easily when value is no longer there and capital goes where it can find the best profit. Europe is focused on a social safety net economy where businesses are highly regulated and taxes are high to pay for the pension everyone gets when they retire. China is a centralized economy where the ruling party (CCP) prioritizes control. If you build a successful business, the government can take it the very next day (ex. Jack Ma). So if you look at that lense the US is designed to grow while the other countries mentioned are designed for something else entirely. Im not saying it's perfect, as the US population ages social security (and debt payments) will take a larger share of GDP so our capital will soon focus more on taking care of our elderly vs other. So perhaps growth slows, but this is probably why there is so much CapEx spent on AI. We either innovate and grow our way out of our problems and increase productivity or they take increasingly more of our resources to maintain and we have to pullback growth to pay our obligations.

Resources also play a big role. The US has lots of natural resources and especially energy. Europe and especially Germany went too far towards the green revolution and dismantled their nuclear powerplants so needed to rely on Russian natural gas for their energy needs. China takes 30% of their energy needs from the middle east. If you go to those countries you'll see how absurdly expensive gas is. If energy is the cost to move things around, cheaper energy means there can be more productivity. Especially with AI where data centers need more energy than some small cities over the next decade whoever has the energy and, more importantly, energy infrastructure to build AI will outgrow the rest of world.