Angela Merkel’s calm steadied a wounded nation — but it also put it to sleep. For sixteen years, Germany mistook caution for competence and comfort for courage. This essay dissects how the myth of …
People usually agree that Russia is now dependent on China.
…yet they had the most engineering graduates worldwide in 2024. Shouldn’t they be thriving according to your engineer dogma?
The EU is deregulating the banking sector to get the money to get the engineers.
Yes yes, we’ve been through this. Let’s talk numbers instead of words for a change: what numbers do you base that on, how many engineers would Europe need in your eyes to achieve independence? Strong opinions, strong facts, let’s hear it.
Why should I appeal to authority?
Do you ask that your doctor too? Or when you go to a lawyer? Or when there’s an electrician coming to you? It’s about recognising that somebody else spend time gathering expertise and a better understanding on a specific topic than you. Nothing wrong with that.
If there is not enough money
Yea no. The report states there is enough money, it just needs to be spent accordingly.
Shouldn’t they be thriving according to your engineer dogma?
They punch above their weight, not only in the war. They have a social network and a search engine. But they need more engineers than either the West or China, which they don’t have.
how many engineers would Europe need in your eyes to achieve independence?
As many as China, and more, and they have to be good. The US have the surveillance to know the tech leads and to make them offers they can’t resist. Difficult to stay ahead without the best minds.
’s about recognising that somebody else spend time gathering expertise and a better understanding on a specific topic than you. Nothing wrong with that.
Or everything. No matter the reputation, if an argument is not convincing, it does not matter. Reputation is there to make people think twice if they disagree.
Yea no. The report states there is enough money, it just needs to be spent accordingly.
As long as there is no forced spending, it’s difficult to change the mindset.
There would be enough, if banks would do the investing, but as the report writes, they should not and can not take the risk.
What the EU does not have are enough founders who take their money and their knowledge and finance the winners of the next round. It does not help if normal citizens burn their money in the next cryto scheme.
To compete, the EU needs two generations of startups, or big companies to become nimble and do the innovation.
That takes at least 15 years, while AI and the political change rewrite the rules.
And once at the top, the founders need a preference to do business in Europe.
It should be done, but it is more difficult than just finding the will to spend.
The problem is that you mistake difficulties with destiny.
These problems can be addressed by policies. For example: Europe has a very good education system capable of producing high class engineers. If you’d want, it is possible to increase the number of engineers.
No matter the reputation, if an argument is not convincing, it does not matter.
If you’re lacking the expertise to make an informed assessment of the argument, all you do is base it on personal opinions. These hardly matter in a fact-driven discussion.
Yet, policies can provide the framework conditions for other processes.
Which argument is not based on facts?
Your argument on why you’re not agreeing with the statements from the Draghi report. They calculated and substantiated their statements, you just put yours out there. No facts from your side.
However, the aggregate total is likely to be an underestimate, as it does not fully capture all the objec-
tives laid out in this report, such as achieving economic security – by ensuring sufficient manufacturing capacity
in critical technologies in the EU – and boosting skills. Moreover, other priorities, such as climate adaptation and
environmental protection, are likely to require significant additional investment.
And an upper bound on the opportunities.
€150 billion to become a leader in digital technologies, while the leading companies cost trillions, that doesn’t make sense.
That €150 billion is not substantiated.
If somebody can take $150 billion and turn that into a trillion $ company, they don’t have to wait for the EU to get the money. In other words, it’s very unlikely that the $150 billion are enough to create several of the trillion € companies that are needed for digital leadership.
There needs to be a huge amount of creativity to turn things around. As you must feel, fewer people will be motivated to create a strong EU if the outlook is that bad. So maybe it’s good if you think differently of the situation, to reach out to people more easily.
€150 billion to become a leader in digital technologies, while the leading companies cost trillions, that doesn’t make sense.
Those 150b are annually, planned for 5 years.
That’s because the trillions that those companies are apparently worth are completely inflated numbers not backed by actual substance. It is an AI bubble waiting to burst.
I don’t see any reason to doubt that a total investment of 150b p/a(!) can make the foundations for strong European digital technology. Especially, when the alternative is to just roll over and give up.
As you must feel, fewer people will be motivated to create a strong EU if the outlook is that bad.
On the contrary: I’ve never seen as much European desire to finally rid themselves of the US and China as currently. Especially since the current outlook is that bad, people are willing to change things.
Even p/a that’s hardly enough to become the leader. It’s investments that come from saving accounts, not taxes. So people decide if they invest in mistral or chatgpt. The money does not have to end up in Europe.
What is needed are rich engineers who become venture capitalists to finance the next generation. That’s what the EU is trying to emulate, without the engineers, while focussing on the money.
Somebody must bring the knowledge. Otherwise the average of all investments is average, and not digital leading companies.
Looking at Musk, it takes only a couple of millions to create a huge portfolio. How does the EU give the right people the money?
Even p/a that’s hardly enough to become the leader.
And the goal posts start to move again…
The point still stands nonetheless: you don’t need the trillions that these firms are currently ‘worth’ to have a domestic competitor to them, as you don’t plan to buy one at the stock exchange, the 150b p/a sound reasonable and are in any case better than doing nothing at all, contrary to what you said, the report doesn’t call for ‘rich engineers’ but for public investments to kickstart the private investment that so far lag behind, policies can provide the framework for all of what you said to happen.
…yet they had the most engineering graduates worldwide in 2024. Shouldn’t they be thriving according to your engineer dogma?
Yes yes, we’ve been through this. Let’s talk numbers instead of words for a change: what numbers do you base that on, how many engineers would Europe need in your eyes to achieve independence? Strong opinions, strong facts, let’s hear it.
Do you ask that your doctor too? Or when you go to a lawyer? Or when there’s an electrician coming to you? It’s about recognising that somebody else spend time gathering expertise and a better understanding on a specific topic than you. Nothing wrong with that.
Yea no. The report states there is enough money, it just needs to be spent accordingly.
They punch above their weight, not only in the war. They have a social network and a search engine. But they need more engineers than either the West or China, which they don’t have.
As many as China, and more, and they have to be good. The US have the surveillance to know the tech leads and to make them offers they can’t resist. Difficult to stay ahead without the best minds.
Or everything. No matter the reputation, if an argument is not convincing, it does not matter. Reputation is there to make people think twice if they disagree.
As long as there is no forced spending, it’s difficult to change the mindset.
There would be enough, if banks would do the investing, but as the report writes, they should not and can not take the risk.
What the EU does not have are enough founders who take their money and their knowledge and finance the winners of the next round. It does not help if normal citizens burn their money in the next cryto scheme.
To compete, the EU needs two generations of startups, or big companies to become nimble and do the innovation.
That takes at least 15 years, while AI and the political change rewrite the rules.
And once at the top, the founders need a preference to do business in Europe.
It should be done, but it is more difficult than just finding the will to spend.
The problem is that you mistake difficulties with destiny.
These problems can be addressed by policies. For example: Europe has a very good education system capable of producing high class engineers. If you’d want, it is possible to increase the number of engineers.
If you’re lacking the expertise to make an informed assessment of the argument, all you do is base it on personal opinions. These hardly matter in a fact-driven discussion.
GDR without a wall. The potential of policies is limited.
Which argument is not based on facts?
Yet, policies can provide the framework conditions for other processes.
Your argument on why you’re not agreeing with the statements from the Draghi report. They calculated and substantiated their statements, you just put yours out there. No facts from your side.
I said that it was a lower bound on the costs.
And an upper bound on the opportunities.
€150 billion to become a leader in digital technologies, while the leading companies cost trillions, that doesn’t make sense.
That €150 billion is not substantiated.
If somebody can take $150 billion and turn that into a trillion $ company, they don’t have to wait for the EU to get the money. In other words, it’s very unlikely that the $150 billion are enough to create several of the trillion € companies that are needed for digital leadership.
There needs to be a huge amount of creativity to turn things around. As you must feel, fewer people will be motivated to create a strong EU if the outlook is that bad. So maybe it’s good if you think differently of the situation, to reach out to people more easily.
I don’t see any reason to doubt that a total investment of 150b p/a(!) can make the foundations for strong European digital technology. Especially, when the alternative is to just roll over and give up.
On the contrary: I’ve never seen as much European desire to finally rid themselves of the US and China as currently. Especially since the current outlook is that bad, people are willing to change things.
Even p/a that’s hardly enough to become the leader. It’s investments that come from saving accounts, not taxes. So people decide if they invest in mistral or chatgpt. The money does not have to end up in Europe.
What is needed are rich engineers who become venture capitalists to finance the next generation. That’s what the EU is trying to emulate, without the engineers, while focussing on the money.
Somebody must bring the knowledge. Otherwise the average of all investments is average, and not digital leading companies.
Looking at Musk, it takes only a couple of millions to create a huge portfolio. How does the EU give the right people the money?
And the goal posts start to move again…
The point still stands nonetheless: you don’t need the trillions that these firms are currently ‘worth’ to have a domestic competitor to them, as you don’t plan to buy one at the stock exchange, the 150b p/a sound reasonable and are in any case better than doing nothing at all, contrary to what you said, the report doesn’t call for ‘rich engineers’ but for public investments to kickstart the private investment that so far lag behind, policies can provide the framework for all of what you said to happen.