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 …
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.
Again: we don’t use the 150b p/a to buy an international competitor and turn it into a European company. We pour 150b p/a into European companies like Mistral to boost their development. Flanked with according policies that underline the determination to prefer European solutions to the ones from China or the US, this inevitably will strengthen the European alternative.
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.
Where else do you think private people will spend their money?
You’d need the trillions to buy an existing company.
That’s not what we want to do. We want to support and/or create a European competitor.
The ROI is the same for buying established companies as for buying a portfolio of startups of which some succeed and others fail.
There is only a benefit in investing into startups if there is a higher success rate in picking winners or there is the influence to make winners.
Where does the success rate come from?
I believe in a decentralized approach but not having a silicon valley could also be an obstacle in recreating the US success rate.
Again: we don’t use the 150b p/a to buy an international competitor and turn it into a European company. We pour 150b p/a into European companies like Mistral to boost their development. Flanked with according policies that underline the determination to prefer European solutions to the ones from China or the US, this inevitably will strengthen the European alternative.