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 …
€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.
We pour 150b p/a into European companies like Mistral to boost their development.
Do we? Those 150b p/a are investments, not taxes. Why should an investor buy Mistral and not OpenAI?
Remember Wirecard? That was our European champion to beat wallstreet. There will be so much corruption that the 150b p/a will only help to make the best engineers work on useless projects.
Flanked with according policies that underline the determination to prefer European solutions to the ones from China or the US
This can only be done on secured markets. Remember how much people hate to use Apple maps because Google’s is better.
The goal in the report was to close the productivity gap. There is not much room to use a worse product until it is good enough.
Which policies do you suggest to drive the change?
Didn’t the report state the public investment would be needed to kickstart private investment? So why not also issuing grants to European tech firms? China has great success bolstering their EV industry with strategic public financial help.
Why should an investor buy Mistral and not OpenAI?
As I said: if an accompanying policy establishes a competitive advantage for European firms, it will strengthen these firms in the second largest economic market in the world. So, there will be more money to be made.
This can only be done on secured markets.
It is our choice how we shape our market for these firms - we can steer it to any direction we like.
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.
Do we? Those 150b p/a are investments, not taxes. Why should an investor buy Mistral and not OpenAI?
Remember Wirecard? That was our European champion to beat wallstreet. There will be so much corruption that the 150b p/a will only help to make the best engineers work on useless projects.
This can only be done on secured markets. Remember how much people hate to use Apple maps because Google’s is better.
The goal in the report was to close the productivity gap. There is not much room to use a worse product until it is good enough.
Which policies do you suggest to drive the change?
Didn’t the report state the public investment would be needed to kickstart private investment? So why not also issuing grants to European tech firms? China has great success bolstering their EV industry with strategic public financial help.
As I said: if an accompanying policy establishes a competitive advantage for European firms, it will strengthen these firms in the second largest economic market in the world. So, there will be more money to be made.
It is our choice how we shape our market for these firms - we can steer it to any direction we like.
A side question: If you had to choose between Europe and independence, what would you choose?
I don’t understand the question. I want independence for Europe. This is like asking: do you prefer Pizza or dinner?