Dennis (@GordonGekko83) on getquin

1Mon·

Once again you can see what the Greens are like. According to reports, it was mainly the Greens who rejected state aid for the start-up company. $LILM (+17.75%) for the start-up company.

The result will be that $LILM (+17.75%) Germany will turn its back and emigrate. It has been shown time and again that innovation has no future in Germany and that the country will continue to lose its inventive spirit.

Here's to the future!

29 Comments

Stefan21@stefan_21

1Mon

I find it rather sad that such companies in Germany are dependent on state aid at all.
The state really has no place in the economy.

•

View all 6 further answers

Enrique@Der_Dividenden_Monteur

1Mon

They have their legal domicile in the Netherlands and a share listing in the USA
That's right, there was no promotion.

•

Fritz@FEAR

1Mon

I generally find the whole discussion far-fetched. Since when is it the state's job to support a start-up? If the company is oh-so-innovative and has good prospects, then there should be enough financial backers to get involved or invest.

I think there are a lot of problems in our country, especially in the economic sector, where I could regularly get upset about the government, but here I am really happy that there is no state aid...

•

Show answer

Charmin@Charmin

1Mon

The battle is won, but not the war. In the end, Söder will fall, and they will still get 50 million from Bavaria. If that happens, I'll vote for the Animal Protection Party at the next election. Or The Party. Definitely not the CSU.

•

Alpalaka@Alpalaka

1Mon

Clear the ring for @Charmin

•

Show answer

Dividende > Zinsen@GoDividend

1Mon

You mean a Dutch company with a stock exchange listing in the usa? -> why don't they ask the Netherlands or the USA for state aid? Stand behind the decision

•

PunktPunktKommaStrich@PunktPunktKommaStrich

1Mon

Well, I don't know if the article was from here or from the net, it was calculated that the flight times were not correct and that the consumption per head was much too high, which would be another grave where money could or can be sunk economically and from a profitable point of view.

Even found :

https://getqu.in/9BWJbg/ https://getqu.in/9BWJbg/

•

capital_captain_391@capital_captain_391

1Mon

Just fine! The business model is highly controversial. So why risk taxpayers' money here?

•

View all 8 further answers

Brody@Brody

1Mon

In Germany, over 3% of GDP is invested in research and development every year. We Germans now perhaps have a more critical view of our own innovative strength than the actual perception abroad reflects.
If the state aid had been approved, next year we would no longer be discussing cycle paths in Peru at every opportunity, but air cabs in Saudi Arabia.

•

Tenbagger2024@Tenbagger2024

1Mon

I also don't understand why there is no investor from the private sector.
Or Airbus gets involved.
Why should the taxpayer always have to pay for this?

•

View all 2 further answers