This is an interesting argument and I can certainly see the merits of of a targeted geopolitical VC for the US, UK etc. However, regarding your proposal for a shared opportunity area, I think your composition may be wrong. Current trends in the US are towards geopolitical isolationism, and this holds doubly true for economic concerns, where there is a genuine argument in favour of the US adopting capital controls. (https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/trade-and-the-manufacturing-share/). Compare this to the likes of the UK, Australia, Canada etc, all of whom have highly open economies and will want to exist outside of such an arrangement, and an ‘AUKUS opportunity area’ isn’t likely to be a recipe for success.
Instead, I’d argue a much more viable proposition is for the ‘opportunity centre’ proposal to be based on the ‘CANZUK’ idea proposal of a semi-union between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. Much of the US’s success is in being able to act as a unified market for investment and foreign policy action due to the cultural and economic specialties of its states. While due to their geographical distance, CANZUK cannot recreate the internal trade aspects of it, they are certainly close enough culturally, economically and temperamentally that you could do the same on internal investment and foreign policy. Thus, rather than trying to fight the uphill battle of large scale collaboration in the US, I think the better solution here is to push the CANZUK angle, and instead encourage the US to pump as much money into them as possible so as to then reap the rewards (I am currently planning on writing a piece on this exact issue).
I respect your pov but disagree on some points. First, you say the trend in the US is toward geopolitical isolationism. This isn't at all true in the Indo-Pacific. There's broad recognition that the US alone can't counter China. Take shipbuilding where China has 240 times the capacity of the U.S. There's no way we can compete alone there. Second and relatedly, I agree the three-country alliance I suggest is limiting and am open to expanding it to Can and NZ, though the two best additions would be Japan and S Korea. Finally, the point of the Triad example was to illustrate a new way of thinking about venture capital as a tool of statecraft, not necessarily to propose something specific - though I still think the bones of the idea are very strong.
To an extent I agree with your point on US foreign policy. My current diagnosis for the future of US geopolitical groupings is the implementation of a capital controls system in the US itself with privileged market access to CARICOM (including the UK via Montserrat), a Customs Union forming between the US, Mexico and CAFTA, extension of USMCA to CANZUK, and possibly the Philippines, Liberia, Haiti etc, and less in-depth PTAs with ASEAN, Japan, South Korea and South America. My assessment of US isolationism isn’t outright isolationism but is more reflective of its likely movement away from significant involvement in anywhere that doesn’t border the Pacific.
With that in mind, attempting to merge in Asian economies to the CANZUK idea direct would probably be a bad idea, as CANZUK’s skillset is much better suited towards Africa, Oceania/Indonesia and South/Central Asia, rather than East Asia and the Western Hemisphere. That isn’t to stop the US forming separate proposals with Japan and South Korea on its own merits, and I recognise your argument about the proposal simply to use VC as a tool of statecraft. However, if you are really interested in the notion of a shared VC region, I’d still suggest focusing more on CANZUK and possibly Northern Europe (UK, Dutch, Nordics, Baltics) as the place to look, with the ensuing area of wider geopolitical focus being the Indian Ocean rather than the Pacific.
I was recently mildly shocked to learn that Lucid Air, one of the most promising new luxury EV startups, is owned by Mohamed bin Salman and KSA. Weird shit. I wondered who brokered that. On the one hand, good for the Saudis to be diversifying, but on the other hand, fuck those guys.
I like what I've heard and seen about Lucid's products, but I don't think I'll be buying one until that changes, even if I had the money.
It goes deep when you start looking at foreign ownership of private US companies.... I mean, consider the shareholders of X, which were recently unmasked by court order.
I think the issues you have raised are more pertinent than ever since it seems to be fashionable in some circles to lay blame at the feet of the US government for every business shortcoming or failure that one experiences. Things are certainly not perfect in terms of the regulatory environment and the like, but people seem to easily forgot that the sort of entrepreneurial success we see is not possible in any other country. As much as the Pro-America voices are growing in tech, I feel that there is also an increasing level of reflexive anti-Americanism that has come about.
Thanks, Kishin. I think a lot of these voices are, like me, Gen X guys who came of age in the 90s when the whole world felt open to free-market capitalism and geopolitical considerations fell by the wayside. Today, they sometimes talk "pro-America" while still flying blind about geopolitical considerations. And they often assume the US government is wrong, or dumb, when they are the naive ones on some issues.
This is an interesting argument and I can certainly see the merits of of a targeted geopolitical VC for the US, UK etc. However, regarding your proposal for a shared opportunity area, I think your composition may be wrong. Current trends in the US are towards geopolitical isolationism, and this holds doubly true for economic concerns, where there is a genuine argument in favour of the US adopting capital controls. (https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/trade-and-the-manufacturing-share/). Compare this to the likes of the UK, Australia, Canada etc, all of whom have highly open economies and will want to exist outside of such an arrangement, and an ‘AUKUS opportunity area’ isn’t likely to be a recipe for success.
Instead, I’d argue a much more viable proposition is for the ‘opportunity centre’ proposal to be based on the ‘CANZUK’ idea proposal of a semi-union between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. Much of the US’s success is in being able to act as a unified market for investment and foreign policy action due to the cultural and economic specialties of its states. While due to their geographical distance, CANZUK cannot recreate the internal trade aspects of it, they are certainly close enough culturally, economically and temperamentally that you could do the same on internal investment and foreign policy. Thus, rather than trying to fight the uphill battle of large scale collaboration in the US, I think the better solution here is to push the CANZUK angle, and instead encourage the US to pump as much money into them as possible so as to then reap the rewards (I am currently planning on writing a piece on this exact issue).
I respect your pov but disagree on some points. First, you say the trend in the US is toward geopolitical isolationism. This isn't at all true in the Indo-Pacific. There's broad recognition that the US alone can't counter China. Take shipbuilding where China has 240 times the capacity of the U.S. There's no way we can compete alone there. Second and relatedly, I agree the three-country alliance I suggest is limiting and am open to expanding it to Can and NZ, though the two best additions would be Japan and S Korea. Finally, the point of the Triad example was to illustrate a new way of thinking about venture capital as a tool of statecraft, not necessarily to propose something specific - though I still think the bones of the idea are very strong.
To an extent I agree with your point on US foreign policy. My current diagnosis for the future of US geopolitical groupings is the implementation of a capital controls system in the US itself with privileged market access to CARICOM (including the UK via Montserrat), a Customs Union forming between the US, Mexico and CAFTA, extension of USMCA to CANZUK, and possibly the Philippines, Liberia, Haiti etc, and less in-depth PTAs with ASEAN, Japan, South Korea and South America. My assessment of US isolationism isn’t outright isolationism but is more reflective of its likely movement away from significant involvement in anywhere that doesn’t border the Pacific.
With that in mind, attempting to merge in Asian economies to the CANZUK idea direct would probably be a bad idea, as CANZUK’s skillset is much better suited towards Africa, Oceania/Indonesia and South/Central Asia, rather than East Asia and the Western Hemisphere. That isn’t to stop the US forming separate proposals with Japan and South Korea on its own merits, and I recognise your argument about the proposal simply to use VC as a tool of statecraft. However, if you are really interested in the notion of a shared VC region, I’d still suggest focusing more on CANZUK and possibly Northern Europe (UK, Dutch, Nordics, Baltics) as the place to look, with the ensuing area of wider geopolitical focus being the Indian Ocean rather than the Pacific.
AUKUS announced today that it is discussing tech partnerships with NZ, Canada, and Japan.... https://stratnewsglobal.com/world-news/aukus-talking-to-canada-japan-and-new-zealand-on-defence-technology/
Certainly a concern, but nearly impossible to solve. LLCs investing in LLCs.
Where do you draw the line between venture capital and private equity? Yet another dimension worthy of discussion.
Yes, it's very opaque. I do not draw much of a distinction between VC and PE. The structural dynamics are similar when it comes to foreign money.
I was recently mildly shocked to learn that Lucid Air, one of the most promising new luxury EV startups, is owned by Mohamed bin Salman and KSA. Weird shit. I wondered who brokered that. On the one hand, good for the Saudis to be diversifying, but on the other hand, fuck those guys.
I like what I've heard and seen about Lucid's products, but I don't think I'll be buying one until that changes, even if I had the money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_Motors
It goes deep when you start looking at foreign ownership of private US companies.... I mean, consider the shareholders of X, which were recently unmasked by court order.
I think the issues you have raised are more pertinent than ever since it seems to be fashionable in some circles to lay blame at the feet of the US government for every business shortcoming or failure that one experiences. Things are certainly not perfect in terms of the regulatory environment and the like, but people seem to easily forgot that the sort of entrepreneurial success we see is not possible in any other country. As much as the Pro-America voices are growing in tech, I feel that there is also an increasing level of reflexive anti-Americanism that has come about.
Thanks, Kishin. I think a lot of these voices are, like me, Gen X guys who came of age in the 90s when the whole world felt open to free-market capitalism and geopolitical considerations fell by the wayside. Today, they sometimes talk "pro-America" while still flying blind about geopolitical considerations. And they often assume the US government is wrong, or dumb, when they are the naive ones on some issues.