51–60 of 261 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The web was invented in Europe. Still, you’re right, few big internet successes in Europe. Problem is almost entirely addressable market size.
What hinders Europeans to address big markets?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The web was invented in Europe. Still, you’re right, few big internet successes in Europe. Problem is almost entirely addressable market size.
What hinders Europeans to address big markets?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was the UK not a net contributor to the EU budget? And therefore, why cannot the UK fund PhDs more effectively than the EU? I would've thought being less removed from the universities and research groups would make funding more effective.
> And therefore, why cannot the UK fund PhDs more effectively than the EU? I always assumed the whole raison d'etre of Brexit was that Conservatives wanted to avoid the obligation of paying into funds like this. Sounds lovely in theory but leaves less government money available to companies with social/professional connections to the cabinet. Funny to see the red wallers finally realizing that too now.
If you are more aligned with the EU political leanings, you would want them to be able to force the UK government to do what you believe is the right thing. If you are more aligned with the tories, you want them to be free to do their thing without being told what to do by the EU. And that seems to correlate highly with whether you think Brexit was a good or a bad idea.
An interesting thought experiment I like to ask people to do is whether they would change their views on Brexit if the political leanings of the EU and the UK were flipped. I.e. the EU views were more like ones they disagree with (e.g. more right-wing perhaps), and the political leanings of the UK were more like what they agree with. For example, if the UK wanted to have more funding for science, but the EU frowned upon that regarding it as unfair competition, or something along those lines.
There are a LOT of really old money families in Europe (and they are a big part of the ruling class) and I believe this colours the entire investment outlook.
In China the money is even newer than the US (practically no billionaires by inheritance for fairly obvious reasons), so would expect them to be even more aggressive and this seems to play out.
One place I see the cracks in this idea are former Soviet states. It seems like their billionaires should be more willing to back moonshot investments than they actually are. Perhaps it is because many of their billionaires are politically connected oligarchs and don't back growth plays in the same way (more about gaining and keeping control of existing pie).
An alternative would be that it's cultural in some more complex way and proportion of inherited wealth is either a factor or actually a consequence of other things going on.
It's pretty common in Europe for people to get a socially-funded education then go off to the USA. It's called brain drain and has been happening for a while, not sure why this guy needs to write an article pretending that's not what's happening here.
I also see a lot of brain drain in Brazil. Most are from public colleges, and they go mostly to Europe.
Sounds like the author is upset that Brexit has closed the valve on the pipeline of cheap labour from EU workers. There's no shortage of talent in London trust me, it's just that you're going to have to start paying more than a pittance to get it. Brexit so far has been a positive thing for tech workers' salaries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the Brexiters logic, but it turns out UK was not only contributing to the EU but also trading. Now it doesn't need to contribute anymore but it also lost exports, access to talent and so on.
Fine, but my point is there is no reason for Brexit to be a net negative when it comes to the funding of PhDs - if anything, it offers an opportunity to be more effective at funding. Same when it comes to the specific issue of access to talent - nothing in principle stopping the UK from making it extremely easy for talent to come to the UK.
> Almost my entire R&D team who received PhDs from British universities had them funded by the European Union Well, there you go.
Was the UK not a net contributor to the EU budget? And therefore, why cannot the UK fund PhDs more effectively than the EU? I would've thought being less removed from the universities and research groups would make funding more effective.
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-55279468
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-levell...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the Brexiters logic, but it turns out UK was not only contributing to the EU but also trading. Now it doesn't need to contribute anymore but it also lost exports, access to talent and so on.
Fine, but my point is there is no reason for Brexit to be a net negative when it comes to the funding of PhDs - if anything, it offers an opportunity to be more effective at funding. Same when it comes to the specific issue of access to talent - nothing in principle stopping the UK from making it extremely easy for talent to come to the UK.
Being able to pull from a Europe wide talant pool was a huge benefit to the UK and her universities.
So there was massive, irreplaceable benefits just for universities lost due to the Brexit project.
Along with that Brexit has cost the UK a ton of money.. this net contributer stuff was literal propaganda.
The UK is worse off now, with less funding to go around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What hinders Europeans to address big markets?
Language barriers, legal differences between countries, etc. Also less availability of capital in general.