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 …
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.
So why not also issuing grants to European tech firms?
Possible but it costs additional money.
So, there will be more money to be made.
Unless the users lose market share. Intel fell behind because they tried to use their own manufacturing process.
It can work, but in a free market, that means tax breaks or subsidies. Then generating those additional €billions for investment is not the main part of the solution.
It is our choice how we shape our market for these firms - we can steer it to any direction we like.
USSR 2.0. Europe has to be big enough and needs something to compensate. China uses their AI chips which require more electricity which they can provide with their own coal. Europe has to import additional energy.
It’s still necessary to aim for European independence, it’s just more complicated.
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.
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?
Yes. What do you prefer, something to eat for dinner or wait until breakfast to eat pizza?
I don’t want the same thing for dinner over and over again, but finally pizza.
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.
Possible but it costs additional money.
Unless the users lose market share. Intel fell behind because they tried to use their own manufacturing process.
It can work, but in a free market, that means tax breaks or subsidies. Then generating those additional €billions for investment is not the main part of the solution.
USSR 2.0. Europe has to be big enough and needs something to compensate. China uses their AI chips which require more electricity which they can provide with their own coal. Europe has to import additional energy.
It’s still necessary to aim for European independence, it’s just more complicated.
Policies.
Policies.
Given that Europe, I repeat myself again, is the second largest economy in the world, it definitely is big enough.