4Settimana
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.
The state really has no place in the economy.
•
2424
•
4Settimana
@stefan_21 That's right, but if you want to get capital-intensive innovations off the ground these days, you usually need state support! But this should be paid back over time, if possible. China, the USA and the like are big players when it comes to state aid. You can't compete with your own equity.
•
11
•4Settimana
@GordonGekko83 I am aware that some companies are dependent on this. Nevertheless, I think it is wrong to use tax revenue to capitalize a startup whose success is uncertain.
Normally, such a start-up develops a relatively inexpensive prototype and if this turns out to be promising, banks are certainly willing to grant loans.
I still find it quite funny that Germany is suddenly playing the moralizer here with the state quota we have and rejecting something like this😂
Normally, such a start-up develops a relatively inexpensive prototype and if this turns out to be promising, banks are certainly willing to grant loans.
I still find it quite funny that Germany is suddenly playing the moralizer here with the state quota we have and rejecting something like this😂
•
11
•
4Settimana
I completely disagree that state aid is right and important. After all, the state can pursue other interests than companies and banks that are looking for short-term returns. Here the state must even be able to work against market mechanisms. If it works, there will be no lack of investors, but to get there the investor (state) needs to pave the way. Otherwise it would be the end for all basic research. After all, we all want a future that we determine ourselves and not one that the market dictates.
•
11
•
4Settimana
@stefan_21 They need help because the product is complete nonsense. This will never, never, never, never, never (a thousand times "never") be a profitable business. Never. They might be able to sell a few of these things (if they ever fly at all) to sheikhs as toys - it will never, never, never, never, never, never become a real means of transportation. A thousand times never.
They're all idiots.
They're all idiots.
•
11
•4Settimana
@Meister_Peter A self-determined future is created precisely through the decisions and actions of individuals on the market and not through the central planning of a state.
If you look at the great inventions of mankind, you will see that most of them were created by entrepreneurs and inventors who encountered problems and developed solutions to them - not through central planning by the state, which believes it knows better what people need.
It is entrepreneurs who are able to recognize problems and offer solutions that people are happy to pay for because they meet their needs. The market allows only the best ideas to be implemented - that is the real process of self-determination.
A state, on the other hand, is not a good entrepreneur. It spends other people's money, which is often particularly loose. At the same time, it lacks the decentralized information and knowledge needed to make the best decisions. This is where the crucial difference becomes apparent: while the market operates dynamically thanks to countless players and information, the state lacks this knowledge and agility.
In addition, it is often overlooked that state intervention generates opportunity costs. What else could have been created with the resources used? And what happens if a company develops a product thanks to state subsidies, while another entrepreneur with a better idea and without state support does not get a chance? The issue here is the distortion of competition and the question of whether the state is even in a position to make such decisions objectively and for the good of society.
If you look at the great inventions of mankind, you will see that most of them were created by entrepreneurs and inventors who encountered problems and developed solutions to them - not through central planning by the state, which believes it knows better what people need.
It is entrepreneurs who are able to recognize problems and offer solutions that people are happy to pay for because they meet their needs. The market allows only the best ideas to be implemented - that is the real process of self-determination.
A state, on the other hand, is not a good entrepreneur. It spends other people's money, which is often particularly loose. At the same time, it lacks the decentralized information and knowledge needed to make the best decisions. This is where the crucial difference becomes apparent: while the market operates dynamically thanks to countless players and information, the state lacks this knowledge and agility.
In addition, it is often overlooked that state intervention generates opportunity costs. What else could have been created with the resources used? And what happens if a company develops a product thanks to state subsidies, while another entrepreneur with a better idea and without state support does not get a chance? The issue here is the distortion of competition and the question of whether the state is even in a position to make such decisions objectively and for the good of society.
••
4Settimana
@Meister_Peter 👍 stimmt
••