3 ms·

I don't think EU cuts deals with specific companies. What would TMSC expect here? That EU gave them money straight up? I don't know how this would work, but may

• teruakohatu 5y ago
  The USA (or states do), China does, even my little country of New Zealand does (our tax dollars fund Hollywood blockbusters). If the EU doesn't they are only going to miss out.
  • smnrchrds 5y ago
    New Zealand may have gone a bit too far in appeasing to corporations, if Kim Dotcom's saga is any indication.
  • rurounijones 5y ago
    Problem is the EU is not as "united" as the above examples. Which country gets the fab (and reaps the benefit) if the EU provides subsidies (Paid for by all)?
    • TMWNN 5y ago
      This is also why there won't ever be a European Silicon Valley. Paris isn't going to support any Europe-wide effort to create one that isn't located in the Hexagon, nor will Berlin support one that isn't somewhere in Germany. London pre-Brexit would not and did not support anything that might take away from Silicon Fen. While other US states encourage their own tech centers' growth, Floridians and New Yorkers and Texans are all aware of, benefit from, and are proud of Silicon Valley being in the US.
      • peoplefromibiza 5y ago
        I look at it the other way: that's why Europe is a better place to live than US we can chose to live in Rome, Berlin, Paris, Prague, Barcelona, Vienna, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Bruxelles, Lisbon etc. etc. and find something meaningful to do, we don't need to move to the only place where all the things happen.
      • opportune 5y ago
        Part of the problem is that in Europe they go about these initiatives by throwing grant money and government programs at it. This can create jobs, and they can become efficient at extracting grant money, but it doesn't necessarily create a self-sustaining economic engine. In my opinion Europe needs to go about it via policy, and maybe even culture, rather than funding. Get rid of non-competes. Make financing less scary for founders and make bankruptcy less punishing - my understanding is that in the EU, a startup failing can destroy a founder's life financially. Controversially, roll back overly permissive or complex labor laws that make it difficult to fire and hire. None of this involves throwing money at the problem. It's about incentives. There's little reason for someone who wants to grow a large technology company to do it in the EU. There's little reason for someone who wants to be an employee of a startup to do it in the EU either. Obviously people still do both, but it's at too low of a rate and density for it to sustain a chain reaction leading to something like SV.
        • 908B64B197 5y ago
          > Part of the problem is that in Europe they go about these initiatives by throwing grant money and government programs at it. This can create jobs, and they can become efficient at extracting grant money, but it doesn't necessarily create a self-sustaining economic engine. It's what happens when you redirect so much money to politicians and bureaucrats. Creating jobs is how they get reelected. That's also how you get labor laws that make it difficult to fire and hire: the slacker's vote is worth just as much as the startup founder's.
        • sofixa 5y ago
          > Make financing less scary for founders and make bankruptcy less punishing - my understanding is that in the EU, a startup failing can destroy a founder's life financially. Every type of company other than the very basic person-level companies are of a limited liability type, so i don't see how that'd be the case, but haven't done it so maybe I'm missing something. > Controversially, roll back overly permissive or complex labor laws that make it difficult to fire and hire Do you think the majority of the population would accept to be worse off, on the chance that there might be some more innovation and money in tech? Why would they? People like not having to worry if their boss is an asshole and makes them do a dangerous job on the fear of getting fired, having affordable healthcare, paid vacation time. Few people would be willing to sacrifice such comforts and the lack of stress associated for the potential benefit of few.
  • jhgb 5y ago
    All of the entities you've named are nation states with a unified government, not loose confederations with limited power.
  • cromka 5y ago
    You realize you completely missed the point of my post?
• ineedasername 5y ago
  The EU could recognize it as a strategic security issue to not have the most advanced chip fabs located in a geographical sphere of influence that is not always aligned with their interests. They would work with TSMC in particular because they're the most advanced. The strategic side of things is slightly less of a concern for them if TSMC bring capacity online in the US since they're mostly on good terms, but it's still not great for one of the world's largest economies to not have this sort of capability inside its borders.
  • kindly_fo 5y ago
    Eu can buy end product much cheaper than producing it themselves. And if the fabs located in us or korea or japan, I think it's good for eu.
• kingsuper20 5y ago
  >I don't think EU cuts deals with specific companies. Airbus?
  • gimmeThaBeet 5y ago
    > That is, unless they are a pan-European champion.