[carlosjobim]

It is just about the only measure. People who claim something is extremely important and then will not take any action or spend any money - they're dishonest people.

Let's see if the Dutch are men of their words. I expect the government to offer to buy this company, or an offering being made for the Dutch investing public to get shares.

[vrganj]

Is water less important to the poor person dying of thirst than to the rich guy watering his lawn?

[carlosjobim]

The question is rather: Why would a person complain about dying of thirst, but refuse to go to the river to drink, and also refuse to pay for a glass of water. That makes me believe he is dishonest when he's saying he is thirsty.

Or are we pretending that the Dutch people don't have any money between them to make an offer on this company?

[vrganj]

We're just establishing that what one can pay is in fact not the only measure, disproving your universal assertion by counterexample.

Regarding the specific case, they probably have the money. But they don't need it. Such is the beauty of regulatory power, vested in a democracy.

[carlosjobim]

The common expression goes: "Put your money where your mouth is"

I want to see if the Dutch will do that or not.

To see the full beauty of regulatory power, you also have to be blind to the long term consequences of decisions.

For example, are the best Dutch entrepreneurs government-aligned to the extent that they will create their startup or business in the Netherlands, knowing that they won't be able to sell shares for their company at full price? If the Dutch were willing to match the American offer, then there would be no long-term issues for them with this blocking action.

The result is that European hi-tech entrepreneurs create their businesses in a friendlier environment, which is usually the USA. And that European entrepreneurs who stay in their homeland have a hard time competing for European talent with pay.

It's easy for a nation state to mandate almost whatever they want when it comes to fixed stuff such as natural resources and agriculture. But when it comes to human talent, they (still) have the option to leave for better pastures. Or just leave business plans on the shelf.

[Jensson]

> The result is that European hi-tech entrepreneurs create their businesses in a friendlier environment

An environment that lets you take European contracts since American companies can't compete for them is very attractive for entrepreneurs, so there is no problem here as long as they are consistent with banning American companies owning European government infrastructure.

[stoltzmann]

>The result is that European hi-tech entrepreneurs create their businesses in a friendlier environment, which is usually the USA.

The inverse of that is that this creates a huge market in the EU, where you don't have to be the best in class and the most capitalistic - you can be good enough and still make a good buck serving local clients.

[carlosjobim]

So it becomes more of a jobs program for the less talented entrepreneurs and their staff?

I would say the above as a joke if it wasn't true on how exactly the situation is in parts of Europe, where local IT experts and consultants struggle to deliver 1980s level software solutions to local governments - at prices which would make any US capitalist swoon.

But you are right in what you say, I won't argue against it.

[vrganj]

This assumes that everyone is solely motivated by maximizing payout above all else, which is not only incredibly cynical, but also just plain empirically wrong.

(Again, by way of counterexample, I took a huge paycut to move from the US to Europe, but y'know, my quality of life is better, I live in a much safer, more pleasant place and I don't need to see people living in cardboard boxes from the window of my nice home anymore)

[Jensson]

If a billionaire bought all the water and is now taking $10 a glass, would you happily pay, or should the government regulate that away?