Comment by alephnerd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by alephnerd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I’m hoping tech companies in Europe and Asia become independent enough to no longer be beholden to US interests

What tech companies?

At the end of the day, it's all about capital and IP.

American domiciled VCs and companies can outinvest just about any other competitor, and much of the core IP for vast swathes of critical next-gen technologies (high NA EUV, Foundation Models, Quantum Computing) is in the US, but American companies are fine transferring technology abroad (often with American government backing [3][4]) and moving jobs abroad.

China has a similar ecosystem but prefers to invest domestically and for IP to remain within China.

Meanwhile Japan, Taiwan, and Korea continue to back the US no matter what due to tensions with China and North Korea along with existing fixed asset investments in the US.

When companies like Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft, and others are able to invest tens of billions of dollars in India [0], Poland [1], Israel [2], Portugal [5], Ireland [6], and others it makes them more open to collaborate with American capital and IP instead of dealing with alternatives who cannot deploy similar amounts of capital and transfer IP.

[0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-11/india-dra...

[1] - https://www.gov.pl/web/primeminister/google-invests-billions...

[2] - https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/sjcwdmxxzg

[3] - https://www.state.gov/pax-silica

[4] - https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...

[5] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-11-11/microsoft...

[6] - https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/11/27/microsoft-has...

The world respected IP because the alternative was being tariffed. Now that we already are, the US can take it's IP laws and shove 'em for all I care.

Tariffs existed before a year ago, whether you knew about them or not.

Obviously. What's your point? Do you mean to tell me nothing changed in how the US tariffs their imports?

No, I'm saying what you said was misleading at best, because tariffs already existed.

Again, obviously. Tariffs were an economic precision instrument and the threat of them a form of soft power. Now they’re a bully’s spiked club. Which is the implication of my original comment had you applied some good faith and reading comprehension.

The US bullying other countries to follow its interests has also existed before a year ago. People are just waking up to the idea that it's going to get worse and not better.

>American domiciled VCs and companies can outinvest just about any other competitor,

Because every investor in the world put their money in the US. They knew the best companies and people would centralize around that hub.

When the US is a rogue, isolated idiocracy -- already true, but the world takes time to adapt to this new reality -- how much of that money do you think will flow to the US?

Much of the capital is US originated and domiciled.

American public pension funds alone hold $6 Trillion in AUM [0] and American endowment funds hold a little under $1 Trillion in AUM [1], and tend to be the LPs for most VC funds as most institutional investors follow the Yale Investment Model.

[0] - https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/2024-ann...

[1] - https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=73

>Much of the capital is US originated and domiciled.

Neither of your citations has any relevance to this at all. That endowments and pensions funds have money...what is your point? Ah, the old HN "look I've provided citations so upvote me, even if they don't support my contention".

Canadians alone hold almost $4 trillion dollars in US securities. Because the US was the centre of the capital universe. Just like we saw it as the centre of the media and music universe. Americans mistook the free world basically anointing the US into some confused notion that it was actually some earned accomplishment.

It's to highlight the depth of capital within the US.

When we in the VC/PE space raise a fund, we are investing other people's money. Most of that money is of American origin and American domiciled.

You do see some large players like in Canada and Europe, but even they are not similar in size to American pension funds and endowments, let alone other American institutional investors.

Edit: Can't reply

> these will often end up being national level and will look individually much smaller than the ones from the US, purely because the US has more people.

Absolutely! And that's what makes it so difficult for Europe to decouple from the US or China.

Most attempts at EU federalization are undermined by national level politicans as the keys to hard power (defense, foreign policy, FDI attraction) remain under the purview of individual European states, becuase push comes to shove, an American employer or fund can threaten to leave and that country's entire political apparatus will work to appease us at the expense of Brussels.

This is how Meta and Amazon have been able to neuter the GDPR thanks to Ireland [0] and Luxembourg [1] respectively.

Even India got the FTA with the EU by using the carrot on France [2] and Italy [3] and the stick on Germany [4].

Europe is in a very tough position because the incentives of a politician who wants to build their career in Brussels is different from one who wants to build their career in Berlin, Bucharest, or Bratislava.

[0] - https://www.euractiv.com/news/irish-privacy-regulator-picks-...

[1] - https://www.aboutamazon.eu/news/policy/amazon-leaders-meet-l...

[2] - https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-signs-74-billion-d...

[3] - https://www.lagazzettamarittima.it/2025/10/30/rixi-in-india-...

[4] - https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/volksw...

> You do see some large players like in Canada and Europe, but even they are not similar in size to American pension funds and endowments, let alone other American institutional investors.

Look, I haven't dug into this, but if one wants a fair comparison, then you need to account for the size of an economy. If 330mn people need pensions, then you'll obviously see much larger pension funds. If 400mn people across 27 countries want pensions, these will often end up being national level and will look individually much smaller than the ones from the US, purely because the US has more people.

Unfortunately most European countries don't pension funds. It's a pity...

(Anyway to put another argument: the US can outflow. Why should people invest to a Trumpland?)

> Unfortunately most European countries don't pension funds. It's a pity...

Many Europeans prefer bank deposits to investment in markets, that's true. I assure you though, there are lots and lots of pension funds in Europe, as well as many, many insurance companies who represent similar capital profiles.

Which EU countries don’t have any pension funds?

> Neither of your citations has any relevance to this at all.

it's a common pattern in GPs comments

pretty certain he just asks the "AI" for citations on whatever he's written

(for a VC he sure has a lot of time to waste shit-posting on the internet)

> When the US is a rogue, isolated idiocracy

This reads like wishful thinking from a butthurt European. I am not a fan of many of Trump's policies and I think ex-US investor sentiment has definitely soured. But it's not like the USA is now DPRK.

> how much of that money do you think will flow to the US?

If there's one thing you can be sure of about aggregate investor behavior, it's that investors seek good risk-adjusted returns regardless of any moral or political objections.

So long as capital flows remain unimpeded, property rights are respected, and US companies have good expected future returns, investors' money will continue to flow in to the US.

> But it's not like the USA is now DPRK.

I'd say the perception is probably worse

kim is simply not a threat

he also hasn't threatened to invade us, and he's not kidnapped any foreign leaders (recently)

Exactly. These guys have blinders.

"idiocracy" ... wow ... such a cool word! And so true.

Thank you.

Wait till you see the movie.

If the comment is not sarcasm (I can't tell reliably anymore), there's a movie called Idiocracy. I think the word comes from the movie, or at least its wide adoption was heavily influenced by it (because someone somewhere probably coined the word before the movie was made).

I'll add my voice that the movie is definitely worth a watch if you haven't seen it yet.

> What tech companies? At the end of the day, it's all about capital and IP.

It's not just about capital and IP. It's now about a halo of related things, like everyone using US payment networks - if the US unbanks you, even banks in your own country can't do business with you[1]. Or everyone using a US-based messaging platform (WhatsApp) because its been subsidised by a BigTech to cost $0, whereas text messages are still not free...

[1]: https://english.elpais.com/international/2025-12-28/the-comp...

> What tech companies? At the end of the day, it's all about capital and IP.

it's a critical industry, so can be regulated to prevent foreign interference

airlines aren't granted freedom of the air unless they're domestically owned

and exactly the same approach can be applied to tech companies

Capital may be important, but in the end, what matters is to actually do the work. Stuff is created by labor, and capital just directs it where to go. In the past that would mean all the relevant labor travelled from Europe to Silicon Valley or NYC, but it doesn't mean that when they're not travelling because they would be randomly arrested at the border. So there is now a lot more tech labor in Europe and that means Europe will build more tech. It worked for China.

Japan is a terrible example for you, they are focused on ditching the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com