>Did they take their money too? And their factories and land and patents and other assets? Does it matter that they're not physically present in the country?

The better question is the impact on future investment. Once a factory is in place, it's a sunk cost and it won't make sense to move it unless the political situation is dire. The same can't be said for investments that haven't been made yet.

> I thought Europe was generally bad for startup funding.

I wonder why that'd be the case...

▲

triceratops 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> The same can't be said for investments that haven't been made yet.

We can debate counterfactuals all day long. People invest when there are profits to be made and refrain when there aren't. Everything else is bullshit.

> I wonder why that'd be the case...

Definitely not wealth taxes because most European countries don't have them. It might be because they don't have the world's reserve currency. Or the million other reasons commentators and economists have written about elsewhere.

	▲	gruez 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>We can debate counterfactuals all day long. It's not really a counterfactual. My point was that deployed capital is less subject to flight, so using that as a measure for a policy's impact is incomplete and short sighted. >People invest when there are profits to be made and refrain when there aren't. Everything else is bullshit. This is also incomplete. People also seek the highest returns. That's why the magnificent 7 tech companies (which happen to be all American) have seen their valuations skyrocket, whereas the appetite for Volkswagen is tepid, despite it turning a profit. That's not to say there's no investment in Europe, but based on startup funding and IPOs, it's pretty clear that the US is the favored place to invest. >Definitely not wealth taxes because most European countries don't have them. My point is that europe is generally business-hostile. Wealth taxes is only one of the factors. There's also high taxes and onerous regulations.