Lots of US companies are primarily domestic. If, for whatever reason--conflicting regulation, existing competitors, different consumer preferences, etc.--it doesn't make sense to expand internationally there's nothing saying that a given company needs to be global. If your strategy from the beginning is to remain focused on a specific market, I don't see an issue with that.
The US is the least dependent major economy on the planet, when it comes to foreign trade. The vast majority of all US companies operate with between zero and minimal exports. The US is a highly self-contained economy (it should be obvious that's not the same as entirely self-contained), few other nations come even remotely close to being comparable.
I totally agree with you that the US is very self contained compared to many countries, though I wonder if that would also be true of the EU as a bloc. The graph you posted treats the US as one unit but each EU country as a separate unit. I think it EU/US or EU country/US state would be more comparable.
You can phrase it any way you want, like "If adding regulations with potential fines even on mistakes to bankrupt a company, then maybe regulators need a rethink". Why is everyone so focused on what the intention of the rules are and not the practicalities? Often I feel these regulations are throwing spaghetti against a wall praying it sticks (e.g. cookie law). Because there's a problem, so the government must solve it. People can't be asked to self-regulate and governments can't be asked to encourage alternatives. It should be after those alternatives fail that the law is used as a last resort, and even then, marginally until the impacts are understood.
You need to read up on GDPR and what it really means.
You’re probably as annoyed by those ever-present cookie banners everywhere. That’s a direct result of another poorly thought-out EU regulation with good privacy intentions behind it. EU is not an indisputable force for good as you seem to think.
