Apple chip maker TSMC planning bond sale to fund Arizona expansion

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 30
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,252member
    avon b7 said:
    melgross said:
    avon b7 said:
    melgross said:
    So is this going to be like the Foxconn (con) expansion in Wisconsin where they built a facility with tax breaks and never used it?

    We certainly need to bring some of this high-tech manufacturing back to America. It will likely hike the cost but total reliance on Asia with China in the backyard is risky. We certainly don't need to bring all of the manufacturing back, just enough capacity to sustain us in a crisis or embargo. We have a lot of foreign car manufactures who have factories here now, so I'd think it's doable if we we place more long term emphasis on higher education training. We really should be extending guaranteed (free) K-12 into 2-years of community college where people can pickup a trade or prepare them for a 4-year college degree, in exchange for 2-years of public or military service.

    TSMC US effort seeking subsidy, similar to Foxconn Wisconsin deal

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/tsmc-us-effort-seeking-subsidy-similar-to-foxconn-wisconsin-deal
    No. Foxconn is an odd company. TSMC has resisted Apple’s appeals before about a USA based plant. Apple wanted a plant devoted to their products, but TSMC refused. Apple was willing to put up half the funds to build, and run it. But a lot of companies don’t want to give up any of their independence, which is what that would have meant.

    all companies seek subsidies. It’s the new world. The EU seems to feel as though it is illegal, hence their suit against Apple and Ireland. But it’s common everywhere else. I’d bet it’s done with European companies in the EU too, but we don’t hear about it.
    The EU does not consider subsidies to be illegal. The EU has helped with funding of just about everything imaginable. 

    I have done work for a company whose sole goal was to find projects from private companies to use EU subsidies.

    This project, by way of example, also uses EU funds.

    https://blogs.upm.es/rsti/2019/12/18/5g-pilot-project/

    The ERDF scheme mentioned in that article had a budget of over 180 billion euros (2014-2020).

    Not talking about subsidies. It’s tax relief they are against.
    Well, you explicitly said subsidies:

    "all companies seek subsidies. It’s the new world. The EU seems to feel as though it is illegal, hence their suit against Apple and Ireland. But it’s common everywhere else"

    Tax relief isn't an issue either. Just look at all the tax relief (and other incentives) for people to renew old cars for more efficient vehicles. All the major manufacturers have benefitted from that cooperation.

    Or startups... 

    https://altar.io/incorporating-startup-eu-overview-tax-reliefs-country/
    You’re right. I did say that, but I meant tax relief. They’re not subsidies. It is a problem there when they’re wildly in debt, and trying to raise money from the easiest sources, which is out of the EU entities. Taxes are so stifling there that it’s hard to raise them even more. Big, profitable American companies are a good target, particularly Apple, which has so many silly lawsuits against it because it’s felt that they can have a big payday for little cost.
  • Reply 22 of 30
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:

    Most of the regulations and regulators that enabled that to happen were gutted during the Bush administration.   He believed that free, unregulated markets couldn't fail.   He was spectacularly wrong.

    Gramm–Leach–Bliley was probably the most important deregulatory move, and it was signed by Bill Clinton.  It did have opposition from Democrats, especially in the Senate, but let's not misrepresent and give Bush more blame than he deserves on that one.

    Sorry, that was a decade or so prior.
    Not everything is the fault of the Clintons.  Sorry.   That old horse has been run hard and worn out.
    ?

    You're talking about deregulation.  The deregulation that large number of economists principally blame for the 2008 financial crisis happened during the Clinton administration.  I'm not blaming Bill Clinton (or the Clintons), the legislation came through Congress and was mostly supported by Republicans.  But I'm certainly not blaming Bush, who wasn't in office at the time.

    It being a decade before 2008 is not really relevant, problems take a while to turn into crises.

    You're looking for facts to support your biases again Georgey.

    No, it wasn't something somebody did a decade prior...   but that is certainly the right wing spin trying to protect the doofus who gutted both the regulations and the regulatory agencies in the years immediately preceding the catastrophe due his blind faith in unconstrained free market capitalism.   But then, they blame the sun rising in the east on the Clintons.

    Those were the same people who said to just let it all come crashing down all the way and the free market would rebuild it better than ever!

    Essentially they put their ideology above reality then blame somebody else when it doesn't work -- because they think their ideology is beyond any fault.
    edited March 2021 melgross
  • Reply 23 of 30
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,143member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:

    Most of the regulations and regulators that enabled that to happen were gutted during the Bush administration.   He believed that free, unregulated markets couldn't fail.   He was spectacularly wrong.

    Gramm–Leach–Bliley was probably the most important deregulatory move, and it was signed by Bill Clinton.  It did have opposition from Democrats, especially in the Senate, but let's not misrepresent and give Bush more blame than he deserves on that one.

    Sorry, that was a decade or so prior.
    Not everything is the fault of the Clintons.  Sorry.   That old horse has been run hard and worn out.
    ?

    You're talking about deregulation.  The deregulation that large number of economists principally blame for the 2008 financial crisis happened during the Clinton administration.  I'm not blaming Bill Clinton (or the Clintons), the legislation came through Congress and was mostly supported by Republicans.  But I'm certainly not blaming Bush, who wasn't in office at the time.

    It being a decade before 2008 is not really relevant, problems take a while to turn into crises.

    You're looking for facts to support your biases again Georgey.

    No, it wasn't something somebody did a decade prior...   but that is certainly the right wing spin trying to protect the doofus who gutted both the regulations and the regulatory agencies in the years immediately preceding the catastrophe due his blind faith in unconstrained free market capitalism.   But then, they blame the sun rising in the east on the Clintons.

    Those were the same people who said to just let it all come crashing down all the way and the free market would rebuild it better than ever!

    Essentially they put their ideology above reality then blame somebody else when it doesn't work -- because they think their ideology is beyond any fault.
    I am genuinely worried about your sanity George; this is just ranting nonsense with no substance at all.  Gramm–Leach–Bliley was a right wing piece of legislation that has been widely blamed by the progressive left for the financial crisis.  You're very far off base here.
  • Reply 24 of 30
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:

    Most of the regulations and regulators that enabled that to happen were gutted during the Bush administration.   He believed that free, unregulated markets couldn't fail.   He was spectacularly wrong.

    Gramm–Leach–Bliley was probably the most important deregulatory move, and it was signed by Bill Clinton.  It did have opposition from Democrats, especially in the Senate, but let's not misrepresent and give Bush more blame than he deserves on that one.

    Sorry, that was a decade or so prior.
    Not everything is the fault of the Clintons.  Sorry.   That old horse has been run hard and worn out.
    ?

    You're talking about deregulation.  The deregulation that large number of economists principally blame for the 2008 financial crisis happened during the Clinton administration.  I'm not blaming Bill Clinton (or the Clintons), the legislation came through Congress and was mostly supported by Republicans.  But I'm certainly not blaming Bush, who wasn't in office at the time.

    It being a decade before 2008 is not really relevant, problems take a while to turn into crises.

    You're looking for facts to support your biases again Georgey.

    No, it wasn't something somebody did a decade prior...   but that is certainly the right wing spin trying to protect the doofus who gutted both the regulations and the regulatory agencies in the years immediately preceding the catastrophe due his blind faith in unconstrained free market capitalism.   But then, they blame the sun rising in the east on the Clintons.

    Those were the same people who said to just let it all come crashing down all the way and the free market would rebuild it better than ever!

    Essentially they put their ideology above reality then blame somebody else when it doesn't work -- because they think their ideology is beyond any fault.
    I am genuinely worried about your sanity George; this is just ranting nonsense with no substance at all.  Gramm–Leach–Bliley was a right wing piece of legislation that has been widely blamed by the progressive left for the financial crisis.  You're very far off base here.

    Yeh, reality is hard -- and those living in right wing, libertarian la-la land think everybody who lives in the real world is crazy.
  • Reply 25 of 30
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,143member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:

    Most of the regulations and regulators that enabled that to happen were gutted during the Bush administration.   He believed that free, unregulated markets couldn't fail.   He was spectacularly wrong.

    Gramm–Leach–Bliley was probably the most important deregulatory move, and it was signed by Bill Clinton.  It did have opposition from Democrats, especially in the Senate, but let's not misrepresent and give Bush more blame than he deserves on that one.

    Sorry, that was a decade or so prior.
    Not everything is the fault of the Clintons.  Sorry.   That old horse has been run hard and worn out.
    ?

    You're talking about deregulation.  The deregulation that large number of economists principally blame for the 2008 financial crisis happened during the Clinton administration.  I'm not blaming Bill Clinton (or the Clintons), the legislation came through Congress and was mostly supported by Republicans.  But I'm certainly not blaming Bush, who wasn't in office at the time.

    It being a decade before 2008 is not really relevant, problems take a while to turn into crises.

    You're looking for facts to support your biases again Georgey.

    No, it wasn't something somebody did a decade prior...   but that is certainly the right wing spin trying to protect the doofus who gutted both the regulations and the regulatory agencies in the years immediately preceding the catastrophe due his blind faith in unconstrained free market capitalism.   But then, they blame the sun rising in the east on the Clintons.

    Those were the same people who said to just let it all come crashing down all the way and the free market would rebuild it better than ever!

    Essentially they put their ideology above reality then blame somebody else when it doesn't work -- because they think their ideology is beyond any fault.
    I am genuinely worried about your sanity George; this is just ranting nonsense with no substance at all.  Gramm–Leach–Bliley was a right wing piece of legislation that has been widely blamed by the progressive left for the financial crisis.  You're very far off base here.

    Yeh, reality is hard -- and those living in right wing, libertarian la-la land think everybody who lives in the real world is crazy.
    I'm normally accused of being a socialist on this forum, so please get some help.  You're fighting imaginary monsters.  
    muthuk_vanalingamgatorguy
  • Reply 26 of 30
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:

    Most of the regulations and regulators that enabled that to happen were gutted during the Bush administration.   He believed that free, unregulated markets couldn't fail.   He was spectacularly wrong.

    Gramm–Leach–Bliley was probably the most important deregulatory move, and it was signed by Bill Clinton.  It did have opposition from Democrats, especially in the Senate, but let's not misrepresent and give Bush more blame than he deserves on that one.

    Sorry, that was a decade or so prior.
    Not everything is the fault of the Clintons.  Sorry.   That old horse has been run hard and worn out.
    ?

    You're talking about deregulation.  The deregulation that large number of economists principally blame for the 2008 financial crisis happened during the Clinton administration.  I'm not blaming Bill Clinton (or the Clintons), the legislation came through Congress and was mostly supported by Republicans.  But I'm certainly not blaming Bush, who wasn't in office at the time.

    It being a decade before 2008 is not really relevant, problems take a while to turn into crises.

    You're looking for facts to support your biases again Georgey.

    No, it wasn't something somebody did a decade prior...   but that is certainly the right wing spin trying to protect the doofus who gutted both the regulations and the regulatory agencies in the years immediately preceding the catastrophe due his blind faith in unconstrained free market capitalism.   But then, they blame the sun rising in the east on the Clintons.

    Those were the same people who said to just let it all come crashing down all the way and the free market would rebuild it better than ever!

    Essentially they put their ideology above reality then blame somebody else when it doesn't work -- because they think their ideology is beyond any fault.
    I am genuinely worried about your sanity George; this is just ranting nonsense with no substance at all.  Gramm–Leach–Bliley was a right wing piece of legislation that has been widely blamed by the progressive left for the financial crisis.  You're very far off base here.

    Yeh, reality is hard -- and those living in right wing, libertarian la-la land think everybody who lives in the real world is crazy.
    I'm normally accused of being a socialist on this forum, so please get some help.  You're fighting imaginary monsters.  

    You mean like lies, propaganda and disinformation - and stupidity?  It fuels the crazies on both the far right and the far left.
    Yeh, I fight that crap.   You should too.
    edited March 2021
  • Reply 27 of 30
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,252member
    Well guys, it is interesting that the biggest budget deficits and biggest contribution to the national debt happens when conservatives are in the White House. Then when a Democrat is in, Republicans scream for a balanced budget amendment. But when a conservative comes in again, it’s all forgotten.

    we’re seeing it now, with Republicans suddenly interested in a balanced budget.
  • Reply 28 of 30
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,252member
    avon b7 said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    avon b7 said:
    melgross said:
    So is this going to be like the Foxconn (con) expansion in Wisconsin where they built a facility with tax breaks and never used it?

    We certainly need to bring some of this high-tech manufacturing back to America. It will likely hike the cost but total reliance on Asia with China in the backyard is risky. We certainly don't need to bring all of the manufacturing back, just enough capacity to sustain us in a crisis or embargo. We have a lot of foreign car manufactures who have factories here now, so I'd think it's doable if we we place more long term emphasis on higher education training. We really should be extending guaranteed (free) K-12 into 2-years of community college where people can pickup a trade or prepare them for a 4-year college degree, in exchange for 2-years of public or military service.

    TSMC US effort seeking subsidy, similar to Foxconn Wisconsin deal

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/tsmc-us-effort-seeking-subsidy-similar-to-foxconn-wisconsin-deal
    No. Foxconn is an odd company. TSMC has resisted Apple’s appeals before about a USA based plant. Apple wanted a plant devoted to their products, but TSMC refused. Apple was willing to put up half the funds to build, and run it. But a lot of companies don’t want to give up any of their independence, which is what that would have meant.

    all companies seek subsidies. It’s the new world. The EU seems to feel as though it is illegal, hence their suit against Apple and Ireland. But it’s common everywhere else. I’d bet it’s done with European companies in the EU too, but we don’t hear about it.
    The EU does not consider subsidies to be illegal. The EU has helped with funding of just about everything imaginable. 

    I have done work for a company whose sole goal was to find projects from private companies to use EU subsidies.

    This project, by way of example, also uses EU funds.

    https://blogs.upm.es/rsti/2019/12/18/5g-pilot-project/

    The ERDF scheme mentioned in that article had a budget of over 180 billion euros (2014-2020).

    Not talking about subsidies. It’s tax relief they are against.
    My understanding is that it is unfair tax relief where one EU country undercuts the others using tax incentives as a form of kick back.

    It’s not a kick back. According to EU law, each country is allowed to develop its own tax policy. Supposedly, the stated problem Apple and Ireland had is that the EU claimed that Ireland made a deal with Apple that wasn’t available to other companies. The last EU court disagreed with that, and allowed the deal. But the EU has appealed to their highest court. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that the EU commissioner has targeted American companies much more than EU based companies that have done the same thing. The American companies are much bigger, and much more successful. They are an easy political target in the EU.

    europe has a problem. Their laws make it very difficult for an entrepreneur to start, and grow the type of companies that thrive here. Labor jaws make it almost impossible to have the flexible work environment that’s needed. It’s also often so expensive to let oeople go, that’s it’s cheaper to keep them on staff even if they no longer serve a function. Then they’re are the financial restrictions on investments, etc.

    so here, we have these gigantic companies that those in the EU envy, but also resent. It’s easy, from a political perspective, to target them. But then, individual countries ignore es rules about many things, such as forming “country champions”. Those are companies the governments force into mergers so that they will be too big for foreign entities to buy. It’s illegal there, but France and Germany have been doing it anyway. I haven’t seen anything significant involving breaking those companies up there, or here for that matter.
    The EU and its people do not envy the US or its companies.

    The companies you speak of simply had a headstart in certain areas and customers in the EU helped make those companies bigger.

    In the current climate where some of the larger companies have already been found to be abusing their size within the EU, it makes all the sense in the world to target the biggest potential offenders first - wherever they may be from. Or would you prefer they targeted smaller companies first? 

    In the digital services realm, four of them happen to be US companies but the EU isn't just investigating those four companies. A couple of years ago, I read that more than 300 were being investigated - most of them EU companies. The EU has also taken issue with member states too. Yes, EU member states also get fined. 

    In terms of setting up companies and thriving, your claims don't make a lot of sense. Companies are being created (and going out of business) every day and there are plenty of EU unicorns too.

    Business as usual on that front.


    https://2020.stateofeuropeantech.com/chapter/value-creation/article/billion-dollar-companies/

    What you are saying, is just incorrect. Learn something about how the EU works, particularly its tax systems. It’s kabir laws, and it’s financial restrictions on new investments. You might be surprised.
  • Reply 29 of 30
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,215member
    melgross said:
    avon b7 said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    avon b7 said:
    melgross said:
    So is this going to be like the Foxconn (con) expansion in Wisconsin where they built a facility with tax breaks and never used it?

    We certainly need to bring some of this high-tech manufacturing back to America. It will likely hike the cost but total reliance on Asia with China in the backyard is risky. We certainly don't need to bring all of the manufacturing back, just enough capacity to sustain us in a crisis or embargo. We have a lot of foreign car manufactures who have factories here now, so I'd think it's doable if we we place more long term emphasis on higher education training. We really should be extending guaranteed (free) K-12 into 2-years of community college where people can pickup a trade or prepare them for a 4-year college degree, in exchange for 2-years of public or military service.

    TSMC US effort seeking subsidy, similar to Foxconn Wisconsin deal

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/tsmc-us-effort-seeking-subsidy-similar-to-foxconn-wisconsin-deal
    No. Foxconn is an odd company. TSMC has resisted Apple’s appeals before about a USA based plant. Apple wanted a plant devoted to their products, but TSMC refused. Apple was willing to put up half the funds to build, and run it. But a lot of companies don’t want to give up any of their independence, which is what that would have meant.

    all companies seek subsidies. It’s the new world. The EU seems to feel as though it is illegal, hence their suit against Apple and Ireland. But it’s common everywhere else. I’d bet it’s done with European companies in the EU too, but we don’t hear about it.
    The EU does not consider subsidies to be illegal. The EU has helped with funding of just about everything imaginable. 

    I have done work for a company whose sole goal was to find projects from private companies to use EU subsidies.

    This project, by way of example, also uses EU funds.

    https://blogs.upm.es/rsti/2019/12/18/5g-pilot-project/

    The ERDF scheme mentioned in that article had a budget of over 180 billion euros (2014-2020).

    Not talking about subsidies. It’s tax relief they are against.
    My understanding is that it is unfair tax relief where one EU country undercuts the others using tax incentives as a form of kick back.

    It’s not a kick back. According to EU law, each country is allowed to develop its own tax policy. Supposedly, the stated problem Apple and Ireland had is that the EU claimed that Ireland made a deal with Apple that wasn’t available to other companies. The last EU court disagreed with that, and allowed the deal. But the EU has appealed to their highest court. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that the EU commissioner has targeted American companies much more than EU based companies that have done the same thing. The American companies are much bigger, and much more successful. They are an easy political target in the EU.

    europe has a problem. Their laws make it very difficult for an entrepreneur to start, and grow the type of companies that thrive here. Labor jaws make it almost impossible to have the flexible work environment that’s needed. It’s also often so expensive to let oeople go, that’s it’s cheaper to keep them on staff even if they no longer serve a function. Then they’re are the financial restrictions on investments, etc.

    so here, we have these gigantic companies that those in the EU envy, but also resent. It’s easy, from a political perspective, to target them. But then, individual countries ignore es rules about many things, such as forming “country champions”. Those are companies the governments force into mergers so that they will be too big for foreign entities to buy. It’s illegal there, but France and Germany have been doing it anyway. I haven’t seen anything significant involving breaking those companies up there, or here for that matter.
    The EU and its people do not envy the US or its companies.

    The companies you speak of simply had a headstart in certain areas and customers in the EU helped make those companies bigger.

    In the current climate where some of the larger companies have already been found to be abusing their size within the EU, it makes all the sense in the world to target the biggest potential offenders first - wherever they may be from. Or would you prefer they targeted smaller companies first? 

    In the digital services realm, four of them happen to be US companies but the EU isn't just investigating those four companies. A couple of years ago, I read that more than 300 were being investigated - most of them EU companies. The EU has also taken issue with member states too. Yes, EU member states also get fined. 

    In terms of setting up companies and thriving, your claims don't make a lot of sense. Companies are being created (and going out of business) every day and there are plenty of EU unicorns too.

    Business as usual on that front.


    https://2020.stateofeuropeantech.com/chapter/value-creation/article/billion-dollar-companies/

    What you are saying, is just incorrect. Learn something about how the EU works, particularly its tax systems. It’s kabir laws, and it’s financial restrictions on new investments. You might be surprised.
    Well, tell me where it's incorrect. I answered most of you points head on. 

    As for 'forced mergers', look at what happened in this particularly big case:

    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/sv/IP_19_881

    Yes, EU companies get hit by the EU competition whip, too. 


    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 30 of 30
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,252member
    avon b7 said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    avon b7 said:
    melgross said:
    So is this going to be like the Foxconn (con) expansion in Wisconsin where they built a facility with tax breaks and never used it?

    We certainly need to bring some of this high-tech manufacturing back to America. It will likely hike the cost but total reliance on Asia with China in the backyard is risky. We certainly don't need to bring all of the manufacturing back, just enough capacity to sustain us in a crisis or embargo. We have a lot of foreign car manufactures who have factories here now, so I'd think it's doable if we we place more long term emphasis on higher education training. We really should be extending guaranteed (free) K-12 into 2-years of community college where people can pickup a trade or prepare them for a 4-year college degree, in exchange for 2-years of public or military service.

    TSMC US effort seeking subsidy, similar to Foxconn Wisconsin deal

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/tsmc-us-effort-seeking-subsidy-similar-to-foxconn-wisconsin-deal
    No. Foxconn is an odd company. TSMC has resisted Apple’s appeals before about a USA based plant. Apple wanted a plant devoted to their products, but TSMC refused. Apple was willing to put up half the funds to build, and run it. But a lot of companies don’t want to give up any of their independence, which is what that would have meant.

    all companies seek subsidies. It’s the new world. The EU seems to feel as though it is illegal, hence their suit against Apple and Ireland. But it’s common everywhere else. I’d bet it’s done with European companies in the EU too, but we don’t hear about it.
    The EU does not consider subsidies to be illegal. The EU has helped with funding of just about everything imaginable. 

    I have done work for a company whose sole goal was to find projects from private companies to use EU subsidies.

    This project, by way of example, also uses EU funds.

    https://blogs.upm.es/rsti/2019/12/18/5g-pilot-project/

    The ERDF scheme mentioned in that article had a budget of over 180 billion euros (2014-2020).

    Not talking about subsidies. It’s tax relief they are against.
    My understanding is that it is unfair tax relief where one EU country undercuts the others using tax incentives as a form of kick back.

    It’s not a kick back. According to EU law, each country is allowed to develop its own tax policy. Supposedly, the stated problem Apple and Ireland had is that the EU claimed that Ireland made a deal with Apple that wasn’t available to other companies. The last EU court disagreed with that, and allowed the deal. But the EU has appealed to their highest court. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that the EU commissioner has targeted American companies much more than EU based companies that have done the same thing. The American companies are much bigger, and much more successful. They are an easy political target in the EU.

    europe has a problem. Their laws make it very difficult for an entrepreneur to start, and grow the type of companies that thrive here. Labor jaws make it almost impossible to have the flexible work environment that’s needed. It’s also often so expensive to let oeople go, that’s it’s cheaper to keep them on staff even if they no longer serve a function. Then they’re are the financial restrictions on investments, etc.

    so here, we have these gigantic companies that those in the EU envy, but also resent. It’s easy, from a political perspective, to target them. But then, individual countries ignore es rules about many things, such as forming “country champions”. Those are companies the governments force into mergers so that they will be too big for foreign entities to buy. It’s illegal there, but France and Germany have been doing it anyway. I haven’t seen anything significant involving breaking those companies up there, or here for that matter.
    The EU and its people do not envy the US or its companies.

    The companies you speak of simply had a headstart in certain areas and customers in the EU helped make those companies bigger.

    In the current climate where some of the larger companies have already been found to be abusing their size within the EU, it makes all the sense in the world to target the biggest potential offenders first - wherever they may be from. Or would you prefer they targeted smaller companies first? 

    In the digital services realm, four of them happen to be US companies but the EU isn't just investigating those four companies. A couple of years ago, I read that more than 300 were being investigated - most of them EU companies. The EU has also taken issue with member states too. Yes, EU member states also get fined. 

    In terms of setting up companies and thriving, your claims don't make a lot of sense. Companies are being created (and going out of business) every day and there are plenty of EU unicorns too.

    Business as usual on that front.


    https://2020.stateofeuropeantech.com/chapter/value-creation/article/billion-dollar-companies/

    Good try, but no. You haven’t shown anything. Where are the EU versions of Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, etc. there aren’t any. There are some big companies that almost went out of business several times, that were given aid, and remained afloat, but otherwise, nada.
Sign In or Register to comment.