
Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians - mastazi
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/09/daily-chart-7
======
dbroockman
Author of the study they wrote about here. I think the NYT write up is better:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/silicon-
valley...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/silicon-valley-
politics.html). Study here: [https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-
research/working-papers...](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-
research/working-papers/wealthy-elites-policy-preferences-economic-inequality-
case).

~~~
gcb0
the nyt open with: "Silicon Valley has long preferred to remain aloof from
national politics, but the Trump era has altered that stance."

which is kinda of hard to defend since Obama constantly blocked the bay area
on reelection campaigns and most of his advisors came from/went to silicon
Valley companies.

~~~
mc32
I'm kind of wondering what happened between c. 1999 and now. The WTO meetings
in Seattle were protested vigorously by "anarchist anti-globalists" who sought
to protect American workers from the competition of outsourcing and cheap
goods from overseas (China was going to enter WTO) So much so the next
meetings were in Doha.

But now, these same class of people are quite a bit more pro globalization and
might be considered globalists. They somewhat ironically seem to embrace some
big aspects of neoliberal economics which is something they were quite
antithetical to back in the early 2000's --so what gives?

~~~
bowlofpetunias
Because "globalism" is a misnomer, it's shorthand for "economic globalism".
Economic globalism is the exploitation of the masses by opening the borders
for trade and desirable workers, whilst keeping them closed for the 99% of
this planets population.

That's the kind of "globalism" the tech elite supports. They love to hide
behind closed borders when it protects their wealth and power.

Those "same class of people" have always supported true globalism for the
people in terms of a complete removal of borders. Don't blame them because
greedy neoliberals have hijacked the term globalism.

~~~
syshum
During the TPP debate I thought there was a discussion about this type of
"free trade" I think this article from C4SS sums up the position of this new
globalism

[https://c4ss.org/content/41012](https://c4ss.org/content/41012):

\----

"In the early 20th century, when most industrial capital was national, Western
countries’ main imports were raw materials from the colonial world and their
main exports were finished industrial goods. So it was in the interest of
American manufacturers to restrict competition in the domestic market from
imported goods manufactured in other industrialized countries. Fast forward
100 years though, and most American imports are by the Western-owned global
corporations themselves, importing goods produced under contract for them so
they can sell them in the domestic market at an enormous “intellectual
property” markup over the cost of production.

Since the movement of goods across borders is now mostly an internal affair of
global corporations themselves, outmoded tariffs that impede the movement of
goods have become an inconvenience. What they need, instead, is a form of
protectionism that still gives them a monopoly over selling a particular
product in a particular market — but operates at corporate boundaries rather
than national ones. That’s what “intellectual property” does.

Aside from the manufacturing corporations we just discussed, most of the other
profitable industries in the global economy have business models centered on
IP: Entertainment, software, electronics, biotech, etc.

So what’s falsely called “free trade” today isn’t a decrease in protectionism.
It’s a shift from one kind of protectionism that no longer serves corporate
interests, to a new kind of protectionism that better serves them."

------
mattnewton
I think more simplistically: when you take this group of people and average
them out what you get are beliefs that benefit the large companies they
represent. That's the signal that is correlated with running a big tech
company, and the rest is probably mostly noise. That's all really, they aren't
for or against free trade in aggregate, they are for their company trading
profitably, on average.

~~~
civilian
Bullshit. You're committing the fallacy that comes from Marxist thought---
that one's position/class/socio-economic-factors are the determining factors
in their values and beliefs. People are not so simple, their thoughts can come
from elsewhere. You're wildly underestimating the sentience of these people.

I think a better model is that: People who understand economics tend to both
be entrepreneurs (they understand the rules of the game they're playing) and
they are in favor of free trade and less regulation.

Free trade _does not_ benefit large companies. Large companies want, and
generally get, favorable regulations and tariffs that make it hard for
outsiders or for small guys.

~~~
jnbiche
I strongly agree with your argument regarding economic-class determinism or
whatever it's called. After all, some of the most progressive policies for the
poor in this country were passed by the wealthiest presidents (FDR, Kennedy,
Johnson).

However, if you're suggesting that Silicon Valley CEOs are in favor of
libertarian free trade, I think I agree more with the article and disagree
with you. Silicon Valley CEOs loyalty is not to free trade, it's to their
globalist lifestyle and outlook on life. Indeed, most of these people seem to
be hardcore monopolists, and with no shame for it either.

~~~
CryptoPunk
>>After all, some of the most progressive policies for the poor in this
country were passed by the wealthiest presidents (FDR, Kennedy, Johnson).

You mean regressive policies that hurt the poor, right?

The War on Poverty marked the end of the decline in the American poverty rate.
The social welfare state gradually sapped American industrial vitality and the
labour productivity growth that had been fueling wage gains across all income
classes for decades.

~~~
Applejinx
But labor productivity growth doesn't cause any wage gains anymore, hasn't for
decades upon decades.

Probably worth asking if you assert that American corporate taxes are the
highest in the world: sometimes there are just major, major reality-based
differences in the discourse and it's useless talking any further. I know I
can't believe some of your axioms here, unfortunately.

~~~
ericd
I'm curious what you mean by that, because I've never heard anyone seriously
argue against that assertion. Our top marginal corporate tax rate is one of
the highest, according to Wikipedia [1], though companies are generally pretty
good at not being too profitable and therefore not paying a very high tax
rate, if that's what you mean.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States)

Excerpt: In 2014 the United States had the third highest general top marginal
corporate income tax rate in the world at 39.1 percent (consisting of the 35%
federal rate plus a combined state rate), exceeded only by Chad and the United
Arab Emirates However, the average corporate tax rate in 2011 dipped to 12.1%,
its lowest level since before World War I, largely due to the great recession
and a bonus depreciation tax break.

~~~
Applejinx
You do understand the difference between marginal and baseline tax rates? That
word 'marginal' did not slip by me, I'm afraid.

~~~
ericd
Yes, I do, and no, it wasn't meant to "slip by you", which is why I asked if
you meant that companies were good at not being profitable, and thus never
made it to the top rate.

------
wallace_f
Gloablist vs Libertarian is a strange dichotomy to me. As a Libertarian this
study would mark me as a 'globalist.' I believe free trade and immigration are
good, and that foreign policy is important.

They go on to ask SV if 'they are libertarians' by asking if they believe in
Minarchism--that the State should only provide police and military, which most
libertarians themselves don't even agree is an ideal interpretation.

What a silly piece of work.

There's a whole lot of corporate and political pushback against libertarians,
which is getting to be crazy. Google defunded Ron Paul's Youtube channel,
which is ridiculous.

Libertarianism is not the opposite of globalism or socialism. In fact, there
exist prominent libertarian socialists, Noam Chomsky for example. The reality
is libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism.

~~~
throwaway2016a
Thank you, I came here to say something about this, the whole article seems to
misunderstand libertarianism.

The extreme fringe of libertarianism is anarchism and I think that is really
what they were getting at. But most Libertarians as with any political
affiliation are not at the fringe (though they may be the loudest).

This would be like judging all Republicans based on the Tea Party or all
Democrats based on Socialism.

------
granfalloon
There was a comment about the political influence and aspirations of certain
big names in tech, but it has suddenly disappeared. It contained some
criticism of Paul Graham and Sam Altman, but seemed totally reasonable to me
-- can anyone say why it was deleted?

~~~
aaron-lebo
I wrote it, I don't feel like being an ass and I'm feeling overly aggressive
today, not to mention I am a guest in someone else's house.

...but my overall point is that the tech elite is composed of a lot of rich
white guys with connections, who naturally help each other out. Sam Altman
runs YC now and as of last year was apparently seriously considering running
for governor of California. That strikes me as grandiose and not good for
society. Sam is 33 and because he's a tech billionaire thinks that he should
run the most developed economy in the world? He genuinely believes that people
outside of tech and business know who he is? He's qualified, because he's
shook hands with the best off of society for the past decade?

Why does he deserve that power? Why does Zuckerberg deserve to be president?
What makes him qualified? He made a PHP app that got big. Come on. That's what
all this boils down to: money and power and a lot of people value that more
than anything else in life.

How about we be honest with ourselves as individuals and societies and stop
enabling that?

~~~
Iv
Trump lowered the bar so much that most people think they can do a better job
than the current president, and are probably right.

What they miss is that running as a republican is very different than running
as a democrat (as I guess most tech people would want to). Zuckberg would beat
Trump in the democratic primaries, no question about that. But he won't be in
front of Trump, he would be in front of many experiences politicians who
actually have a clue about how one manages a country.

~~~
pen2l
> Zuckberg would beat Trump in the democratic primaries, no question about
> that.

So, where is this all coming from -- that Zuckerberg wants to run for
president? I'll bet my house and every last penny I own, he does _not_ want to
be president, he will _never_ run for president.

Oh, and he would never win. He's an insanely smart dude, but he hasn't got the
charisma to win presidency.

(I do think that a lot of people on HN should run for some higher office in
gov't, particularly tptacek and rayiner).

~~~
aaron-lebo
It's very possible that a lot of his current rhetoric and actions are part of
PR and image control for Facebook as a brand and even a genuine desire to
extend his horizons.

However, some of his actions are distinctly political.

[http://people.com/politics/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-
team-202...](http://people.com/politics/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-
team-2020-presidential-campaign/)

He hired "Joel Benenson, a former top adviser and longtime pollster to
President Barack Obama and the chief strategist of Hillary Clinton’s 2016
presidential campaign", and prior to that he hired "David Plouffe, campaign
manager for Obama’s 2008 presidential run".

Your statement is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not sure Zuckerberg is
actually "insanely smart". He's similar intelligence to a lot of people on HN,
but people conflate power and success with visionary ability. Maybe he is
that, or maybe he's just a relatively smart guy with lots of connections, a
very favorable background, and the same hangups, limitations, biases, and
delusions as everyone else.

------
current_call
This isn't news, is it? Google hates decentralization. Visa and money transfer
restrictions force them to improve the areas they're based out of. Open
communication makes it harder for them to control public opinion. Eric
Schmidt, the CEO of Google, coauthored a book, The New Digital Age, about how
in the future there won't be any border restrictions and 'fake news' will be
censored away. Here, I have quotes!

 _More effective communication across borders and languages will build trust
and create opportunities for hardworking and talented individuals around the
world. Bureaucratic obstacles that prevent this level of decentralized
operation today, like visa restrictions and regulations around money
transfers, will become either irrelevant or be circumvented as digital
solutions are discovered._

 _Imagine all of your accounts -- Facebook, Twitter, Skype, Google+, Netflix,
New York Times subscription -- linked to an "official profile." Within search
results, information tied to verified online profiles will be ranked higher
than content without such verification, which will result in most users
naturally clicking on the top (verified) results._

 _People who try to perpetuate myths about religion, culture, ethnicity or
anything else will struggle to keep their narratives afloat amid a sea of
newly informed listeners._

Oh, and if any of you disagree with them, don't worry. They made a point of
saying they can't be held responsible, and that boycotting their products or
refusing to work for them will hurt you more than them.

 _It is, after all, much easier to blame a single product or company for a
particularly evil application of technology than to acknowledge the
limitations of personal responsibility._

 _Certain subsections of the technology industry that receive particularly
negative attention will have trouble recruiting engineers or attracting users
to and monetizing their products, despite the fact that such atrophying will
not solve the problem (and will only hurt the community of users in the end,
by denying them the full benefits of innovation.)_

Don't be evil. Don't be Google.

~~~
puranjay
> People who try to perpetuate myths about religion, culture, ethnicity or
> anything else will struggle to keep their narratives afloat amid a sea of
> newly informed listeners.

This is pretty damn terrifying.

Who is the authority on what qualifies as a "myth" or a "lie"?

We're coming closer to a Ministry of Truth every single day. And people who I
would otherwise call 'smart' are actively cheering for it if it protects their
own sacred belifs

------
Chiba-City
Mathematicians are globalists. Software is like High Latin or sheet music.
CPU's are its translators or maybe pipe organs. What could anyone miss here?
This was, is and shall remain the very overt and enduring goal of cultured
people. I did get to study nuclear strategy relevant game theory with Thomas
Schelling decades back. But I should not be newly informing software guru CPU
composers that "good jobs for good wages to impress ladies" or "sky bomber
tools" are not goals. Those are minimal essential system basslines or nothing.
Math applies everywhere we listen. There is no politics or wishing to it
whatsoever. Just more math and music.

------
zht
Please excuse my ignorance with modern political parlance, but I always got
the feeling that "globalists" was actually dogwhistle codeword for Jew. Is
that the case?

~~~
lliamander
Interesting, that's never been my understanding. More refers to anyone who
desires world government (or the diminishing of local governments) and who
finds the desire to preserve one's culture, community, and national identity
as backwards and unenlightened.

I suppose it could be used by some as a dogwhistle, but it seems there's also
a meaningful set of ideas that can be represented by that term.

~~~
pvg
_Refers to anyone who desires world government (or the diminishing of local
governments) and who finds the desire to preserve one 's culture, community,
and national identity as backwards and unenlightened._

That's not what 'globalist' means outside of the fringes. It's certainly not
the way the linked article uses it.

~~~
lliamander
Well, I'll have to re-read the linked article. In any case, while I probably
did not phrase it in the language that globalists themselves would use, but
would they flat out refute my definition? Or would they merely nuance it?

------
projectramo
I don't like these categories but while we are playing this game:

Aren't libertarians also globalists?

~~~
sremani
The current global trade (non-software) relies on security provided by US
Navy. Global Trade is not Free Trade! You need a security under-writer for it.
I think Libertarians have a "blind-spot" there.

~~~
davidivadavid
I'm not sure about that, unless you're conflating libertarians with anarcho-
capitalists. Minarchist libertarians would actually consider that making free
trade possible through military might is in the purview of the state.

~~~
sremani
You may be right, but what is libertarian idea of maritime trade in hostile
world and how would a free market established in such circumstances.

(I am not asking for full answer.. you can point me books or links)

~~~
WalterBright
You might want to check out what the US Navy did to the pirates.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates#18th.E2.80.931...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates#18th.E2.80.9319th_centuries)

------
yellowapple
If they favor free trade and redistribution of wealth, then they're still able
to be libertarians.

Libertarianism and globalism are not mutually exclusive. There's a whole
spectrum of libertarians from anarcho-capitalists to libertarian socialists
(I'm somewhere in the middle-left, I'd reckon). The unifying trait is the
belief that individual freedom is paramount.

------
raldi
The stereotypical right-wing position is, "This government program is poorly-
run; let's get rid of it"

The stereotypical left-wing position is, "This government program should be
left alone, even if it's poorly-run"

The stereotypical Gray Tribe position is, "This government program is poorly-
run; let's debug it"

~~~
guelo
Why would the left-wing not want to improve a poorly run program?

~~~
raldi
Because of donations and assurances of bloc voting from the entities profiting
from the inefficiencies and corruption, just like the other side.

~~~
TheIronYuppie
That's a bit reductive. There's another thought - the government program might
feel poorly run, but there are in fact a million contingencies that they have
to pay attention to, that a startup doesn't; or the government program is
poorly run, but it's better than the alternative (a profit seeking corporation
driving down costs, but, ultimately, providing worse service at the expense of
returns - see prisons).

I guess it all comes down to your definition of "poorly run".

------
ulrikmoe
Classical liberalism does not oppose universal healthcare. When you had
prohibition, in Denmark we had classical liberalism, universal healthcare and
a marginal taxrate of <15% (1/4 of yours). This is the society that I prefer
and hopefully Denmark can get back on the right track :)

------
md224
Anyone else here familiar with "liberaltarianism"? I think that might be what
the data is showing: the desire for a robust and efficient free market
tethered to a redistributive social safety net.

I think it's a pretty good idea.

~~~
milcron
Good idea but an awful name.

"Liberal" has an existing meaning which has been warped by American politics.
Both the American parties have a liberal heritage. Republicans are
conservative liberals, and Democrats are largely progressive liberals.
Libertarianism is a reactionary liberal ideology that seeks to return to a
freer, less-regulated market.

The confusion happened due to FDR. He ran on a progressive platform but the
term "progressive" was poisoned in American politics at the time, so he called
himself "liberal".

There is already a term for what you're describing, simply "left-
libertarianism" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-
libertarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism)

~~~
jim-jim-jim
I agree with what you said about liberalism, but I think you're off the mark
with regards to left-libertarianism. It's a disparate label, but I can't
imagine any of these schools of thought showcasing "the desire for a robust
and efficient free market" the parent comment calls for.

Liberal markets + social safety net sounds like garden variety Nordic model
democracy to me. The term "left-libertarian" is usually ascribed to groups
like Catalonian anarchists or Zapatistas.

------
Shivetya
their categories are broad enough to arrive at any result they wanted. still I
never ever considered any of the SV bosses to anything close to libertarians.

~~~
JPKab
I think that SV founders fall into a pretty solid category of people who were
raised by educated, successful people.

My main concern with this is that people raised by successful, hard-working
people don't understand poverty and the culture around it.

Zuckerberg is a perfect example. He's a guy who preaches about tolerance,
diversity, and inclusion, but he grew up in an upper middle class suburb that
was lily white and had no diversity itself.

As a guy who grew up in a working class family with major cultural dysfunction
that was mirrored by people all around me, I recognize that the typical
"solutions" tossed out by these people are useless.

I WISH that the only reason minorities were underrepresented in tech was
racism. The real reason is the culture of poverty. This spans race. How many
white people from trailer parks in West Virginia or Kentucky do you encounter
in the tech scene? Probably a similar number to black people from poor inner-
city neighborhoods. Almost none.

In fact, when you encounter minorities in SV, they are typically from middle
class families with college-educated parents. It's a perfect example of why
the "surface" aspects of diversity are not only a bad metric, but one that
contributes to the problem by acting as a red herring from true root causes.

Yet the SV CEOs think they know everything because they built a web app that
streams music.

~~~
aaron-lebo
Exactly. It drives me crazy to hear people who never moved 20 minutes outside
of downtown Manhattan and went to a 30k a year high school act like they
possibly understand what it's like to be working class or that they can begin
to diagnose major issues in society. They've never seen anything but the upper
crust of it.

------
diminish
first generation rich people tend to be different than later ones. SV bosses
who are owners of successful startups would fall in the former category imho.

that explains most traits attributed by OP to the SV people.

~~~
drawnwren
Do you have numbers to back this up? The first generation of tech darlings
almost exclusively come from upper middle and above backgrounds. I'm genuinely
interested if that has changed.

------
lubesGordi
"would like to live in a society where government does nothing except provide
national defence and police protection, so that people could be left alone to
earn whatever they could," \-- obviously encapsulates the libertarian
philosophy.

~~~
danek
It's one of those things that sounds so simple and great on paper but has a
huge impedance mismatch with reality.

~~~
mmirate
How do we know? It's never existed in reality.

(Of course, I'll admit, neither has "true" Communism ... or so its supporters
claim.)

------
maxxxxx
What are these strict categories good for? The real image is much more
complex.

------
unabridged
There is a category called left libertarian that describes them pretty close.
Basically american libertarian + UBI (or other types of wealth
redistribution).

------
dominotw
the survey seems not to be anonymous and people lie if they know that their
position as a ceo would be associated with their political views.

------
_pmf_
I think some sarcastic slow clapping is appropriate here.

