6 ms·

> we don't care if the tech sector concentrates in California or Texas or wherever as long as it is in the US Hmmm... I'm not sure that's true. For some defini

> we don't care if the tech sector concentrates in California or Texas or wherever as long as it is in the US Hmmm... I'm not sure that's true. For some definition of "we", it would be tautologically true, I guess. Many states complain about paying more in taxes than they get back in spending. California, Texas, and New York all pay more in taxes than they get back in spending, though Delaware takes the biggest hit, per capita: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state#Tables_of_federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_...

e5india 11y ago
Oh I absolutely agree. That's why I meant to limit that to the national sense of 'we'. Of course internally we still have our debates about spending and certainly other states would prefer if Silicon Valley where part of their local economy. But ultimately California's success is still part of our national success and so ultimately the spending happens however much we would prefer it be spent differently. And the complaints you mention in our own country which does have such a strong national sense of identity makes it even less likely in the EU. Is the sense of being 'European' so strong that member states are willing to spend billions of their own taxpayer euros to build up a tech sector largely centered in some other member state? I dont think so.
exelius 11y ago
IMO the EU is too protective of its economy to allow the kind of innovation Silicon Valley is famous for. The EU has a default assumption of "you have to prove that this will not be harmful before you can do it" where the US has a default assumption of "someone else has to prove that this will be harmful before we will stop you". The important part is that this burden of proof in the US is not placed on a company at a time before they have revenue to prove it. By the time they're big enough to have to defend themselves from an attack on regulatory grounds, they have the means to do so. Something like Uber could never have come out of Europe. A large company that is breaking the law while competing with regulated taxis and remaining unregulated themselves? That would never fly in the EU, and Uber has met a lot more resistance there than the US. They're only able to address the EU market because they have a large, profitable base in the US. In any measure, the regulatory culture in the US is much more laissez-faire than the EU. In the US, you can do whatever you want as long as it's not explicitly illegal. In the EU, you can do whatever you want, as long as you prove that it's not illegal first. It's a huge difference, and it's one of the biggest cultural differences between Europe and the US.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > They're only able to address the EU market because they have a large, profitable base in the US. Uber is only able to address any market because they have a ton of outside venture funding. Don't get me wrong - I agree that the EU is overly protective and that this harms their startup economy, but Uber is not a good example of that point.
  - exelius 11y ago
    That's true of any startup. But I guarantee you in one of those venture funding pitches someone asked them "So most cities have taxi regulations that make what you're trying to do illegal. How are you dealing with that?" Their answer was basically "Fuck 'em, we'll flood the market with cheap product, make consumers love it and the regulators will cave." That would not have worked in Europe if they hadn't already done it in a bunch of cities across the US.
    - 001sky 11y ago
      "That's true of any startup" no, not really. its only true specific contexts. which was the point of the previous comment. but you're right in the second part, that's sort of a confidence game...success begets success.
    - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
      If Uber is so great, when are they gonna make a profit?
  - tim333 11y ago
    Indeed. There were a load of London based taxi apps eg http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-3057608/Six-best-minicab-taxi-apps-revealed-Forget-waving-street-corners-let-phone-work.html http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-3057608/Six... The thing Uber has which I think it would only get in Silicon Valley is about $8bn of funding. The biggest UK company I think is Hailo which raised about $100m. It'll be interesting to see how they do in China where the competitors have raised similar vc - Kuaidi raised $950 and I think Uber are spending a billion or so in China.
jessaustin 11y ago
...Delaware takes the biggest hit, per capita Does this have anything to do with the fact that many many companies are incorporated in Delaware but don't do much business there? It seems possible that the federal taxes paid by such companies are counted as being "from Delaware" even though they mostly aren't, really.

e5india 11y ago

Oh I absolutely agree. That's why I meant to limit that to the national sense of 'we'. Of course internally we still have our debates about spending and certainly other states would prefer if Silicon Valley where part of their local economy. But ultimately California's success is still part of our national success and so ultimately the spending happens however much we would prefer it be spent differently. And the complaints you mention in our own country which does have such a strong national sense of identity makes it even less likely in the EU. Is the sense of being 'European' so strong that member states are willing to spend billions of their own taxpayer euros to build up a tech sector largely centered in some other member state? I dont think so.

exelius 11y ago

IMO the EU is too protective of its economy to allow the kind of innovation Silicon Valley is famous for. The EU has a default assumption of "you have to prove that this will not be harmful before you can do it" where the US has a default assumption of "someone else has to prove that this will be harmful before we will stop you". The important part is that this burden of proof in the US is not placed on a company at a time before they have revenue to prove it. By the time they're big enough to have to defend themselves from an attack on regulatory grounds, they have the means to do so. Something like Uber could never have come out of Europe. A large company that is breaking the law while competing with regulated taxis and remaining unregulated themselves? That would never fly in the EU, and Uber has met a lot more resistance there than the US. They're only able to address the EU market because they have a large, profitable base in the US. In any measure, the regulatory culture in the US is much more laissez-faire than the EU. In the US, you can do whatever you want as long as it's not explicitly illegal. In the EU, you can do whatever you want, as long as you prove that it's not illegal first. It's a huge difference, and it's one of the biggest cultural differences between Europe and the US.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> They're only able to address the EU market because they have a large, profitable base in the US. Uber is only able to address any market because they have a ton of outside venture funding. Don't get me wrong - I agree that the EU is overly protective and that this harms their startup economy, but Uber is not a good example of that point.
- exelius 11y ago
  That's true of any startup. But I guarantee you in one of those venture funding pitches someone asked them "So most cities have taxi regulations that make what you're trying to do illegal. How are you dealing with that?" Their answer was basically "Fuck 'em, we'll flood the market with cheap product, make consumers love it and the regulators will cave." That would not have worked in Europe if they hadn't already done it in a bunch of cities across the US.
  - 001sky 11y ago
    "That's true of any startup" no, not really. its only true specific contexts. which was the point of the previous comment. but you're right in the second part, that's sort of a confidence game...success begets success.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    If Uber is so great, when are they gonna make a profit?
- tim333 11y ago
  Indeed. There were a load of London based taxi apps eg http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-3057608/Six-best-minicab-taxi-apps-revealed-Forget-waving-street-corners-let-phone-work.html http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-3057608/Six... The thing Uber has which I think it would only get in Silicon Valley is about $8bn of funding. The biggest UK company I think is Hailo which raised about $100m. It'll be interesting to see how they do in China where the competitors have raised similar vc - Kuaidi raised $950 and I think Uber are spending a billion or so in China.

jessaustin 11y ago

...Delaware takes the biggest hit, per capita Does this have anything to do with the fact that many many companies are incorporated in Delaware but don't do much business there? It seems possible that the federal taxes paid by such companies are counted as being "from Delaware" even though they mostly aren't, really.