Can Europe build its first trillion-dollar startup?(ft.com)
ft.com
Can Europe build its first trillion-dollar startup?
https://www.ft.com/content/e3e23aea-eb4d-42dd-a9ea-9ae267b8f507
9 comments
Voila! I completely agree.
Also as in my non-expert opinion, this way multiple countries within the EU/Europe (the Brits and Swiss can have a share as well) could benefit.
But then again I'm non expert. I do how ever know that the last time we had such's a wealthy companies in the 1600's it didn't do humanity lots of good ;)
But then again I'm non expert. I do how ever know that the last time we had such's a wealthy companies in the 1600's it didn't do humanity lots of good ;)
But then you don't have a company that can afford to build a 100b training cluster for example.
If that becomes the new sota you are again left behind.
>If that becomes the new sota you are again left behind.
It's why Europe is being elft behind technologically compared to the US and also loosing worldwide share of GDP. Thousands of small local companies scattered across several countries can't compete with the scale the likes of FAANG can achieve in the US and worldwide.
It's why Europe is being elft behind technologically compared to the US and also loosing worldwide share of GDP. Thousands of small local companies scattered across several countries can't compete with the scale the likes of FAANG can achieve in the US and worldwide.
> provides a much higher social benefit than a single behemoth
In capitalism, companies don't exist to provide a social benefit, that's what the government is for. Companies exist to provide value to the shareholders, that's it. And the US is far better off with those trillion dollar behemoths than without.
The amount of prosperity the US working class sees because of those behemoths puts them at much higher wealth and disposable income than Europeans even after you account for the higher education and healthcare costs.
>even if it doesn't make the magical GDP number go exponential
That "magical GPD number" is also what pays into the welfare services the EU desperately needs. Where do you think the EU will afford that level of welfare if that GPD number will keep stagnating?
In capitalism, companies don't exist to provide a social benefit, that's what the government is for. Companies exist to provide value to the shareholders, that's it. And the US is far better off with those trillion dollar behemoths than without.
The amount of prosperity the US working class sees because of those behemoths puts them at much higher wealth and disposable income than Europeans even after you account for the higher education and healthcare costs.
>even if it doesn't make the magical GDP number go exponential
That "magical GPD number" is also what pays into the welfare services the EU desperately needs. Where do you think the EU will afford that level of welfare if that GPD number will keep stagnating?
> And the US is far better off with those trillion dollar behemoths than without
This is stated over and over by people who like big companies, like an axiom. And like an axiom, it's impossible to prove - because the only way to prove it would be to compare it against something that doesn't exist, a United States without trillion dollar companies. So you're supposed to just believe it because of how often it's repeated. But I don't believe it, on the contrary, it smells like bullshit to me. It reminds me a lot of another financial axiom we were all supposed to believe: trickle down economics. And look how that turned out.
This is stated over and over by people who like big companies, like an axiom. And like an axiom, it's impossible to prove - because the only way to prove it would be to compare it against something that doesn't exist, a United States without trillion dollar companies. So you're supposed to just believe it because of how often it's repeated. But I don't believe it, on the contrary, it smells like bullshit to me. It reminds me a lot of another financial axiom we were all supposed to believe: trickle down economics. And look how that turned out.
>It reminds me a lot of another financial axiom we were all supposed to believe: trickle down economics. And look how that turned out.
It ended up with Americans having the highest purchasing power in the world, even after accounting for high education and medical costs.
Like it or not the workers in capitalist America were and are far better off than in countries where Communism was tried. So trickle down did actually work.
It ended up with Americans having the highest purchasing power in the world, even after accounting for high education and medical costs.
Like it or not the workers in capitalist America were and are far better off than in countries where Communism was tried. So trickle down did actually work.
So, America is doing better than communist countries, and therefore trickle down economics worked...
That's absolutely the lamest attempt at an argument I've seen all week.
That's absolutely the lamest attempt at an argument I've seen all week.
If only you could read. Let me copy and paste the argument for the third time, maybe it sinks in this time:
"It ended up with Americans having the highest purchasing power in the world, even after accounting for high education and medical costs."
"It ended up with Americans having the highest purchasing power in the world, even after accounting for high education and medical costs."
"It ended up with Americans having the highest purchasing power in the world"
Uhm, https://www.numbeo.com/ has the US as fifth highest in 2024-mid year and fourth in 2024 overall...
Uhm, https://www.numbeo.com/ has the US as fifth highest in 2024-mid year and fourth in 2024 overall...
If you have even tiny a bit of experience incorporating in business-friendly jurisdictions (US, UAE, UK, etc) and you're asking yourself the very same question that is the title of that article, there is a simple way to find out.
Try to run a venture startup in Germany.
Try to run a venture startup in Germany.
A Trillion-dollar company is not a startup. The company is over 30 years old.
I think that the European investment capital is scarce and optimized for low-risk ideas. The last time I had a look, pre-seed funding from EU funds, but also some private funds IIRC, was laughable 50-60k EUR for a single year.
How do you attract and ignite the talent to start a research with that amount of money is out of my understanding.
How do you attract and ignite the talent to start a research with that amount of money is out of my understanding.
>How do you attract and ignite the talent to start a research with that amount of money
That's the neat part, you don't. </Omni-Man>
That's the neat part, you don't. </Omni-Man>
Exactly.
I'm not sure we in Europe do the advanced bits of capitalism like extracting lots of profits globally and floating for huge amounts very well. In the UK I can think of a couple of companies that could have gone big - DeepMind and ARM but they both got bought out by Google and Softbank respectively. Maybe it's a cultural thing?
(Also, come on, it would be a trillion euro company.)
On the contrary, I think any company that grows that big would be split into smaller companies. This makes sense to me. 100x10b euro companies, or 20x50b (∆) euro companies provides a much higher social benefit than a single behemoth, even if it doesn't make the magical GDP number go exponential. Small companies can be controlled by legislation. Huge companies do the controlling, and that way lies dystopia. Trillion dollar companies are the American dream, not the European one.
(∆) Realistically it wouldn't divide that way of course. The value of the split companies won't equal to potential single huge company, they'll be either higher or lower.