LoginSignup
image de profil
Dennis
@GordonGekko83
1Mo·

No state aid for $LILM (+3,05 %) !


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 (+3,05 %) for the start-up company.


The result will be that $LILM (+3,05 %) 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!

9
29 Commentaires
image de profil
Stefan21@stefan_21
1Mo
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.
•
24
•
Voir toutes les 6 autres réponses
image de profil
Enrique@Der_Dividenden_Monteur
1Mo
They have their legal domicile in the Netherlands and a share listing in the USA
That's right, there was no promotion.
•
12
•
image de profil
Fritz@FEAR
1Mo
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...
•
11
•
Afficher la réponse
image de profil
Charmin@Charmin
1Mo
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.
•
4
•
image de profil
Alpalaka@Alpalaka
1Mo
Clear the ring for @Charmin
•
2
•
Afficher la réponse
image de profil
Dividende > Zinsen@GoDividend
1Mo
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
•
2
•
image de profil
PunktPunktKommaStrich@PunktPunktKommaStrich
1Mo
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/
•
1
•
capital_captain_391@capital_captain_391
1Mo
Just fine! The business model is highly controversial. So why risk taxpayers' money here?
•
1
•
Voir toutes les 8 autres réponses
image de profil
Brody@Brody
1Mo
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.
•
1
•
image de profil
Tenbagger2024@Tenbagger2024
1Mo
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?
•
1
•
Voir toutes les 2 autres réponses
Participez à la conversation
S'inscrireConnexion