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 …
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.
Which policies can make people use Mistral, or use the European hyperscaler that doesn’t have locations all over the world for endpoints? Subsidies and government agencies.
Policies will give you some digital companies but not the independence that you want. Europe is not big enough to beat the network effects of the world. There are two graphic card companies, and the Chinese one. There is no place for Europe.
I am not saying that you should abandon your goal. You are just waisting years if you think that policies are enough.
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.
Which policies can make people use Mistral, or use the European hyperscaler that doesn’t have locations all over the world for endpoints? Subsidies and government agencies.
Policies will give you some digital companies but not the independence that you want. Europe is not big enough to beat the network effects of the world. There are two graphic card companies, and the Chinese one. There is no place for Europe.
I am not saying that you should abandon your goal. You are just waisting years if you think that policies are enough.
I never said that.
Your answer to problems is policies.
The answer to your objections is policies. That does not mean at all that we should rely on policies alone to achieve independence.
Then which problems cannot be solved with policies? I think my objections are already part of those problems.