Isn't that method exactly how the silicon valley, and with it companies like Intel, were created? By the US DoD directing money from the top?

Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, IBM, list goes on, weren't envisaged by a 60 year old bureaucrat sitting in Brussels or Washington.

They were created by ambitious young men looking to shape the world in their own way.

IBM and Google both came almost directly from government money. Amazon, Microsoft and Netflix are arguably actual startups.

The snowball/butterfly effect is real.

I feel like some in tech want to take responsibility, somehow that American's are just better tech-bros than anyone else. It was mostly chance.

Call it what it is, a gift. And take care of it, they only get made by luck.

They will probably have a similar realization about software in a decade or two.

They could start here. Why Facebook, Google, Amazon don't open massive headquarters in Paris, Madrid, Rome or Berlin, and they rather stick to UK and Switzerland?

Also software managers won't move to Europe for the same reasons. European politicians have the upper hand and the last word in negotiations.

If you compare Panama, or other tax havens where multinational companies like to stash their revenue, to the EU then you probably have a point.

Also in the whole article there is no mention of funding. It is probably a tech sharing and licensing agreement more than anything.

And there's a huge difference in values. The American ethos is "you're free to do great things, if you can". The European ethos is "You need the state to protect you from everything and you shouldn't try to be different or independent"

Consider that in the US, the decisions are also 'made from the Top' but often from large investment firms that decide where the money goes.

When an industry is small and new, it's more open.

But for commercial aircraft like for regular airlines, there is zero hope unless the government coordinates it. There's no 'hey, invest $20 Billion in my startup, maybe I will have customers some day'. No - you need a national strategy with the airlines buying in.

That said - concerns over central planning are real - not so much in impetus, but in execution.

If Europe could snap it's fingers and for $10 Billion just have competitors to Intel just magically appear - it would be a good investment. Very good.

But unlike roads, tunnels and bridges, you can't just buy innovation.

It's going to take the right leaders, the right investments, the right kinds of innovation.

Which is extremely hard.

I don't know the industry but it may may more sense to come at it from the periphery: possibly by creating design and fabs for more common chips.

Or maybe it makes sense to come at it from an academic/open angle, and get the top Universities to publish open source designs that if industry buyers want, they can get subsidies for fabs.

Finally ... the other parts of the ecosystem are not there as much: there is no more Nokia. There is nobody making computers. There is no 'OS' to guide deep integration.

I think it's reasonable to be wary of this kind of top down sentiment as it's risky and not preferable, and prone to fluffy words without action, at the same time, it's reasonable to address the issue.

https://boomsupersonic.com

'Boom' is a tiny little venture company that may or may not make actual commercial viability, in a niche sector.

Boom is not remotely trying to enter the market for real commercial traffic, which is essentially impossible for a regular private company.

There are no successful airline manufactures that exist without the expressed coordination of a national strategy.

Boeing is a 'strategic asset' - they are supported by massive military contracts and other industrial subsidies. They have Federal level support from the diplomatic corps and may involve themselves in foreign policy. Sales of aircraft may be tied to other mechanisms of statecraft.

Airbus - even more so, practically a creation of European governments.

To give an example of what happens when nations are not powerful, look at Bombardier in Canada - which was squeezed out of a more niche are of commercial aircraft by state actions.

Boeing complained to Donald Trump about 'unfair competition' - the US - against NAFTA treaty - imposed a 250% duty on Bombardier jets. To get around this, Bombardier had to drop their pants and do an ugly deal with Airbus. Eventually, this inability to flex material power in conjunction with other state assets ... and it's a flop for Canada, and a 'win' for a bigger entity backed by a more powerful state entity as the commercial aircraft business was sold off to Airbus.

If Canada had a huge domestic market, this probably would not be the case.

Edit: it's possible Boom eventually develops into a much bigger entity, maybe in 40 years, using their 'smaller, currently niche but growing industry' as an entry point. But taking on Boeing is tantamount to taking on Microsoft directly.