[mschuster91]

Access to capital, mostly. The US has always been willing to grant hefty amounts of taxpayer money to startups, something culturally foreign to Germany (startups are risky, Germans don't want taxpayer money to be spent on risky adventures that might bring losses) and the US also has dozens of billions of dollars a month in 401k pension savings making their way into the asset markets.

And China, well, it's a dictatorship with effectively unlimited foreign currency reserves. They can do whatever they want.

[lII1lIlI11ll]

> The US has always been willing to grant hefty amounts of taxpayer money to startups

Care to elaborate? I was under impression that absolute majority of startups in US are fully funded by a (private) venture capital. There are (were?) some exceptions like tax reductions on "green" projects, but they were not restricted to startups/small companies in any way.

[mschuster91]

> I was under impression that absolute majority of startups in US are fully funded by a (private) venture capital.

Tesla got a shitload of government funding, including a 465 million dollar loan [1]. SpaceX was effectively funded by NASA in its early days. In total, the Muskverse alone got 38 billion dollars [2]. Bezos' Blue Origin got at least 1.5 billion dollars [3].

Sure, by number most startups are fully privately funded. But that doesn't mean the US government isn't willing to help things along, at least for those well connected. And on top of that come government research grants to universities who then spin off companies and keep the profits from the spinoffs.

[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-paid-off-teslas-193...

[2] https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/117956/documents/...

[3] https://thehill.com/lobbying/5113500-bottom-line-bezos-blue-...

[joe_mamba]

>Tesla got a shitload of government funding, including a 465 million dollar loan

How much money, grants, tax-breaks, favorable loans and regulation, etc did the German, French, Italian car companies get from their local governments?

> But that doesn't mean the US government isn't willing to help things along, at least for those well connected.

As if Schroeder, Merkel, Scholz, etc didn't roll over backwards for their private industry political backers. The CEOs of VW, BMW and Daimler had those guys on speed dial.

Please, let's not pretend only the US government is helping its giants and the Europeans never.

[mschuster91]

> How much money, grants, tax-breaks, favorable loans and regulation, etc did the German, French, Italian car companies get from their local governments?

Nowhere near close to that.

[joe_mamba]

CoL and labor costs are also lower in EU than in US so the less money goes further

[looperhacks]

They didn't claim that Germany doesn't give money to companies. The claim was that Germany doesn't want to give money to start-ups.

[lII1lIlI11ll]

How does it compare to European states subsidizing ArianeGroup, in your opinion?

[joe_mamba]

>Access to capital, mostly.

German auto makers were wealthier than the US auto makers. Germany's GDP is now third in the world. There is capital.

>Germans don't want taxpayer money to be spent on risky adventures

But they wanted it to be spent on Russian gas pipelines, foreign aid, anti nuclear activism, and in the pockets of politically connected multinationals like T-systems to build another "government digitalization project" while their internet speed lacks behind developing nations?

>that might bring losses

If they hate losses, why do they keep losing? Germany decline in past 15 years seems like its a self fulfilling prophecy. The more risk averse they are to avoid change or losses, the more they keep losing to economies who embraced change, disruption and risk.

[mschuster91]

> German auto makers were wealthier than the US auto makers. Germany's GDP is now third in the world. There is capital.

The problem is, that capital is stuck in the bank accounts of the uber rich.

> But they wanted it to be spent on Russian gas pipelines, foreign aid, anti nuclear activism, and in the pockets of politically connected multinationals like T-systems to build another "government digitalization project" while their internet speed lacks behind developing nations?

- Nordstream was privately funded, half by Gazprom, half by a consortium of privately owned large utilities

- Germany has drastically cut back on foreign aid funding, which in return killed off a lot of the goodwill Germany enjoyed in the Global South, we all know that China and Russia filled the gap. The numbers go up in theory but that's only due to funding for Ukraine.

- Anti-nuclear activism never got significant amounts of funding, instead dealing with the nuclear waste costs 1.4 billion euros a year, only 400 million euros are actually going towards the environment [1].

The only point you actually got somewhat correct is

> in the pockets of politically connected multinationals like T-systems to build another "government digitalization project" while their internet speed lacks behind developing nations?

The problem is, again, risk avoidance. Public tenders are written to prefer established players like SAP, T-Systems et al that can prove decades of experience in government projects. Partially that is due to incompetence, partially it is to shrink the bidder pool and avoid the risk of getting entire projects held up for years by lawsuits of bidders who lost.

The lack of internet speed doesn't come from a lack of public investment. Telekom has been privatized for decades. The problem here is regulatory incompetence.

> Germany decline in past 15 years seems like its a self fulfilling prophecy. The more risk averse they are to avoid change or losses, the more they keep losing to economies who embraced change, disruption and risk.

Agreed. The b00mer brainrot runs heavy here.

[1] https://taz.de/Budget-des-Umweltministeriums/!6102402/

[joe_mamba]

>- Germany has drastically cut back on foreign aid funding, which in return killed off a lot of the goodwill Germany enjoyed in the Global South, we all know that China and Russia filled the gap.

Germany now surpassed the US as the biggest foreign aid spender in the world, in absolute terms, not per capita

[mschuster91]

> Germany now surpassed the US as the biggest foreign aid spender in the world, in absolute terms, not per capita

A lot of the foreign aid budget is going to Ukraine [1], and the sum that goes to Ukraine isn't even including military aid.

Note, I have zero issue with aid going to Ukraine, and in fact it's still not enough - the issue I have is that a lot of other places simply fall through the gaps.

[1] https://de.statista.com/infografik/25614/groesste-empfaenger...

[joe_mamba]

>Note, I have zero issue with aid going to Ukraine,

What about the German pensioners or handicapped people who can barely survive on their state income?

[Roark66]

>Nordstream was privately funded, half by Gazprom, half by a consortium of privately owned large utilities

And do you also believe what Merkel said that "it's purely a commercial venture"?

Who chairs those "privately owned large utilities"?

What are the links between those people and "the establishment" that includes people like Merkel (earlier Shroeder - his work for Gazprom was also purely commercial venture of a private citizen, right?).

That establishment deciding its a great opportunity for Germany to be the Russian gas station of rest of Europe forced to use that gas as the only "green transition" hydrocarbon.

And not only was it a great commercial venture (that had in its profitability calculation getting rid of nuclear - including blocking countries like Poland from building it, squeezing out other countries that own pipelines again such as Poland/Ukraine/Hungary and so on and forced "transition" to gas for the EU - let's not kid ourselves, renewables will never be more than 50% of base load unless battery tech gets cheaper, so that "transition fuel" would last for 50+ years.

It also contained a humanitarian element of giving Putin huge amount of money therefore making sure the dictator will absolutely not use it to build armies to invade his neighbours (despite doing that already at the time in Georgia for example), but he will get used to that money so much he will spend it all and will not want to stop it coming therefore granting eternal peace in Europe.

Anyone who thought the public will swallow this must have been high... But the Germans did.

"nothing to see here" - right?

I for one am glad hopefully the German public realises what kind of state Russia is now, and what "doing business" with them leads to (it corrupts your own country) , but how long that knowledge remains, and why it took a full scale war in Europe to acquire it I don't know.

[mschuster91]

> And do you also believe what Merkel said that "it's purely a commercial venture"?

That's not the point here (and for what it's worth, Nord Stream should never have been started in the first place, and we should have cancelled it the day that "little green men" arrived in Ukraine).

My point was and is that Germany is traditionally very reluctant in handing out government funds and especially government-backed debt to private industry in general while the US has all but zero issues.

[joe_mamba]

>Germany is traditionally very reluctant in handing out government funds and especially government-backed debt to private industry

Not true. Most of Germany's economic growth since 2022 has been due to massive government public spending, since private investments are down.

The problem is US finances startups who have to either scam private investors or actually innovate to survive, whereas german government funds only politically connected dinosaurs who don't innovate.