5 ms·

there is also a lot of money thrown in businesses in the form of EU subsidies. YC gives a miniscule amount of money ($125K), i believe european entrepreneurs ca

there is also a lot of money thrown in businesses in the form of EU subsidies. YC gives a miniscule amount of money ($125K), i believe european entrepreneurs can (and do) milk naive US VCs for a lot more than what YC offers. The YC data is clear about one thing: if you remove the need to travel to the US , a lot more europeans flock to YC. We 've become a terribly sclerotic continent and it's very visible now. I believe things will get a lot better after we hit rock bottom.

rapsey 5y ago
> there is also a lot of money thrown in businesses in the form of EU subsidies. And that money is mostly a complete waste. EU money comes with so many strings and baggage that you are either big enough and have the resources to deal with it (and thus you don't actually need it), or you are small and make it your entire business model to live off EU funds and not produce anything of value ever.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  > with so many strings I have found the strings to be bureaucratic, not material, which has turned many small european businesses to paperwork factories.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  That's unfortunate, and also ironic - most of those strings weren't there initially; they were added because of "entrepreneurs" stealing the funds and producing nothing of value.
  - rapsey 5y ago
    The root of the problem is that the EU funding system is just a bad way of going about funding innovation. The US private VC model is superior in every way.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      How is it superior? I linked to a description of YC's top companies: they lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Aren't successful companies supposed to, you know, earn money and turn a profit? Or is superiority is strictly in the amount of money thrown at unbelievably unprofitable companies?
      - TeMPOraL 5y ago
        To be fair, US model produces both. The same regulatory and cultural burden that makes EU an infertile ground for money-burning billion-dollar scams also makes it harder for decent companies to create useful innovations[0] in general. I feel we could use a little more easy capital in double-digit million € range, but retain or even improve the friction above low triple-digit million €. Basically: experimentation is good. Unchecked growth from zero to multinational behemoth is not always so good. There are two hard problems though: 1. At the lower end, it's very hard to distinguish a legit experimentation from a scam. We already have too many fly-by-night small businesses preying on the population. I'm not sure how to fuel more legit startups without making the latter problem worse - as we can tell from the EU grants, adding more strings tends to kill good businesses faster than bad ones. 2. At the upper end, big corporations are geopolitical weapons. Nations and blocs like EU are always in conflict with others; currently, it's mostly economical warfare. This means that any country or bloc tends to be happy if they can spawn a billion-dollar company. -- [0] - Where by "useful innovation" I mean one that's ultimately yielding a net positive value for the society, and is not purely a business model innovation like it's common with so many hot tech companies these days.
      - rapsey 5y ago
        Quoting the end of you post. > The vast majority is fuelled by litrerally endless investor money with only two modes of operation: corner the market (that is, outlive other competitors who don't have such an unlimited amount of money) or get sold. Yes that is the business model and business is good. As opposed to EU which is a wasteland where nothing grows. Lots of businesses are built to be sold to larger businesses. It makes sense and there is nothing wrong with this model. As for investing in money losing enterprises, so what? If investors are willing to do it let them.
dmitriid 5y ago
> there is also a lot of money thrown in businesses in the form of EU subsidies. Show me any subsidy in the EU that supports a business losing 500 million dollars a year for 10 years. > We 've become a terribly sclerotic continent No. The US has become reckless with money, and the concept of a successful business has been entirely substituted by "but this unbelievably unprofitable company with no chance of ever earning money has an imaginary market cap of 50 billion dollars".
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  > that supports a business losing 500 million dollars a year for 10 years. That assumes that those startups get investment from outside YC , which is not what i m talking about. Also, the EU just approved a giant stimulus package which will be used to support a lot of failing companies, just take a look at the air carrier subsidies around the continent. It's true that US is subsidizing unsustainable businesses, probably in the hopes that something good will come out of them regardless. But that doesnt change the fact europe is repelling entrepreneurs.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > That assumes that those startups get investment from outside YC Yes, they do. And that's the main difference between the EU and the US. Especially with YC startups expect to get significant investments after the incubator. > Also, the EU just approved a giant stimulus package which will be used to support a lot of failing companies You do realize there have been two years of pandemic? > But that doesnt change the fact europe is repelling entrepreneurs. What's your definition of entrepreneurs? A company that always loses money "in the hopes that something good will come out of them"? The EU is a complex multi-lingual multi-cultural market unlike the uniform US market flooded with unlimited investor money. All of the "successful" incubators, investors, startups would fail miserably here, outside their near-ideal conditions.

rapsey 5y ago

> there is also a lot of money thrown in businesses in the form of EU subsidies. And that money is mostly a complete waste. EU money comes with so many strings and baggage that you are either big enough and have the resources to deal with it (and thus you don't actually need it), or you are small and make it your entire business model to live off EU funds and not produce anything of value ever.

cblconfederate 5y ago
> with so many strings I have found the strings to be bureaucratic, not material, which has turned many small european businesses to paperwork factories.
TeMPOraL 5y ago
That's unfortunate, and also ironic - most of those strings weren't there initially; they were added because of "entrepreneurs" stealing the funds and producing nothing of value.
- rapsey 5y ago
  The root of the problem is that the EU funding system is just a bad way of going about funding innovation. The US private VC model is superior in every way.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    How is it superior? I linked to a description of YC's top companies: they lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Aren't successful companies supposed to, you know, earn money and turn a profit? Or is superiority is strictly in the amount of money thrown at unbelievably unprofitable companies?
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      To be fair, US model produces both. The same regulatory and cultural burden that makes EU an infertile ground for money-burning billion-dollar scams also makes it harder for decent companies to create useful innovations[0] in general. I feel we could use a little more easy capital in double-digit million € range, but retain or even improve the friction above low triple-digit million €. Basically: experimentation is good. Unchecked growth from zero to multinational behemoth is not always so good. There are two hard problems though: 1. At the lower end, it's very hard to distinguish a legit experimentation from a scam. We already have too many fly-by-night small businesses preying on the population. I'm not sure how to fuel more legit startups without making the latter problem worse - as we can tell from the EU grants, adding more strings tends to kill good businesses faster than bad ones. 2. At the upper end, big corporations are geopolitical weapons. Nations and blocs like EU are always in conflict with others; currently, it's mostly economical warfare. This means that any country or bloc tends to be happy if they can spawn a billion-dollar company. -- [0] - Where by "useful innovation" I mean one that's ultimately yielding a net positive value for the society, and is not purely a business model innovation like it's common with so many hot tech companies these days.
    - rapsey 5y ago
      Quoting the end of you post. > The vast majority is fuelled by litrerally endless investor money with only two modes of operation: corner the market (that is, outlive other competitors who don't have such an unlimited amount of money) or get sold. Yes that is the business model and business is good. As opposed to EU which is a wasteland where nothing grows. Lots of businesses are built to be sold to larger businesses. It makes sense and there is nothing wrong with this model. As for investing in money losing enterprises, so what? If investors are willing to do it let them.

dmitriid 5y ago

> there is also a lot of money thrown in businesses in the form of EU subsidies. Show me any subsidy in the EU that supports a business losing 500 million dollars a year for 10 years. > We 've become a terribly sclerotic continent No. The US has become reckless with money, and the concept of a successful business has been entirely substituted by "but this unbelievably unprofitable company with no chance of ever earning money has an imaginary market cap of 50 billion dollars".

cblconfederate 5y ago
> that supports a business losing 500 million dollars a year for 10 years. That assumes that those startups get investment from outside YC , which is not what i m talking about. Also, the EU just approved a giant stimulus package which will be used to support a lot of failing companies, just take a look at the air carrier subsidies around the continent. It's true that US is subsidizing unsustainable businesses, probably in the hopes that something good will come out of them regardless. But that doesnt change the fact europe is repelling entrepreneurs.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > That assumes that those startups get investment from outside YC Yes, they do. And that's the main difference between the EU and the US. Especially with YC startups expect to get significant investments after the incubator. > Also, the EU just approved a giant stimulus package which will be used to support a lot of failing companies You do realize there have been two years of pandemic? > But that doesnt change the fact europe is repelling entrepreneurs. What's your definition of entrepreneurs? A company that always loses money "in the hopes that something good will come out of them"? The EU is a complex multi-lingual multi-cultural market unlike the uniform US market flooded with unlimited investor money. All of the "successful" incubators, investors, startups would fail miserably here, outside their near-ideal conditions.