LoginSignup
capital_captain_391@capital_captain_391
1Mo
Just fine! The business model is highly controversial. So why risk taxpayers' money here?
•
1
•
image de profil
Dennis@GordonGekko83
1Mo
@capital_captain_391 I'm talking about the principle here! Whether it would have been worth it now $LILM is certainly debatable, but what innovations has the FRG already driven against the wall, where we were pioneers and then "lost" everything!
••
image de profil
Beat The Bank@randomdude
1Mo
@GordonGekko83 To discuss the principle, however, I would look for another example than a company that has been controversial for years and which, in the opinion of probably most independent experts in the field (apart from Frank Thelen and Markus Söder), has little chance of success.
•
2
•
image de profil
Beat The Bank@randomdude
1Mo
@randomdude And, as a matter of principle: Lillium has very strong investors. Why should the state step in if they no longer believe in the company?
•
1
•
image de profil
Dennis@GordonGekko83
1Mo
@randomdude Do you know another current example? Just because of the topicality. As already mentioned, yes, Lillium is controversial.
••
image de profil
Daniel Lugo@Daniel_Lugo
1Mo
@GordonGekko83 "on principle" 😅 is that why taxpayers' money is being wasted?
••
image de profil
Beat The Bank@randomdude
1Mo
@GordonGekko83 At $TSLA in Brandenburg, the calculation seems to have worked out. The same applies to the chip coloring plants in the Dresden area.
••
image de profil
Dennis@GordonGekko83
1Mo
@randomdude But that's two different things - it's about established companies and other strategic directions of the state.
••
image de profil
Beat The Bank@randomdude
1Mo
@GordonGekko83 That's true, of course.
State VC funding has always been difficult and particularly controversial.
••