It's the opposite, if anything. The US has the best conditions for running a company. It is only natural that the highest margin sectors of the day (whatever that may be) is located there. Anything else would be evidence of market distortion.
Why would anyone build that when you get curb stomped by the three US providers if you try? There's a reason EU providers don't attack that market directly.
Now, if there was a market that were prohibited from using US cloud providers that would give EU providers an actual way to move upmarket.
Previously I think that was true, but it feels to me that there really might be an opportunity to do it now. (And yes, agree that If there was a market that was explicitly prevented from using US tech then it would turbocharge that sentiment). The US has trashed its reputation so completely that if there's any latent desire to shift to EU tech the time to strike would be now.
Not every drug is an opioid. We have prohibition laws designed for opioids blindly applied to any (in the western context) nontraditional drug. The German law on drugs is literally called "the painkiller law", for instance.
The meaning has drifted, appropriately enough. Betäubungsmittel originally meant painkillers, as you can tell from the word. It's just that now every recreational drug is labeled as such.
You seem to be confusing the words "Schmerzmittel" (analgesic, pain killer) and "Betäubungsmittel" (narcotic). Those two classes of substances are not the same.
"Betäubung" has a similar etymology as "narcotic". Both mean to numb the senses or put to sleep (hence e.g. "narcolepsy"), and in German it's therefore also used for sedatives and anesthetic drugs. In modern use, "narcotic" has also semantically shifted to include any illegal drug, as with "Betäubungsmiddel".
Interestingly, in both cases the semantic shift seems to have been caused by the enactment of laws to control drugs. The legal term these days is probably "controlled substance" in English, but "narcotic" now definitely refers to many drugs that are not medically narcotic.
It can also mean anesthetics, which coincidentally would include cocaine as a strong local anesthetic, but not a narcotic in the pharmacological sense.
> Well said: why does a tax break bother people so much?
Several reasons. It distorts the market for one. One tax rate for me, another for thee. That's government picking favorites. Generally regarded as a bad thing.
I'll bite. What's the downside of a flat tax for a category like datacenters? If Meta want's to negotiate a lower tax rate for datacenters that's great, just allow every datacenter to apply for that same rate then.
The government decides who is owed what material goods. This is known as property rights. The destruction in this case would be equivalent to transferring the ownership of some factories to the government, exchanging those factories for something flammable on the open market and then setting fire to said flammable things. It's obviously wasteful, but definitely possible, and it won't directly and measurably impact anyone's quality of life. Investor confidence in your country will nosedive, though.
reply