
Why Silicon Valley Billionaires Are Prepping for the Apocalypse in NZ (2018) - elorant
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-valley-billionaires-are-prepping-for-the-apocalypse-in-new-zealand
======
natalyarostova
> he vengefully bankrupted a website because he didn’t like how they wrote
> about him.

This is so uncharitable and dishonest. Sure it's technically true, but I think
outing someones sexuality deserves to be noted as more than just 'didn't like
how they wrote about him.'

~~~
intopieces
The usual concern about outing someone's sexuality is the impact it might have
on their personal safety or ability to obtain or maintain employment. Not in
Thiel's case. There was no negative repercussion whatsoever -- the dude is
super-villain rich. The bankrupting was just spite.

~~~
influx
To clarify, you are ok with outing LGBTQ folks as long as there is no
discernible repercussions?

~~~
powowow
To clarify, you are ok with billionaires having the ability to use the legal
system to destroy any organization they personally dislike?

~~~
throwaway_tech
I think you unfairly are blaming the "billionaires" here and failing to
acknowledge the organization bankrupted themselves by violating the law.

They didn't have to violate the law and expose themselves to a lawsuit for
damages. Even then, they didn't have to spend themselves into bankruptcy
fighting the lawsuit. They could have saved all the legal costs and accepted a
judgement. Of course they could have not violated the law and avoided the
lawsuit altogether. It seems to make sense the person who was damaged by the
organization personally dislikes them, but that has nothing to do with the
company going bankrupt, their own behavior is what lead to them going
bankrupt.

~~~
powowow
Cool.

Did you know that Peter Thiel, in his own words, decided to "create a shell
company to hire former investigative reporters and lawyers to _find_ causes of
action against Gawker", and to then give it a starting timeline and budget of
"three to five years and $10 million"?

~~~
throwaway_tech
>"create a shell company to hire former investigative reporters and lawyers to
_find_ causes of action against Gawker"

Cool.

As I said, you can point the finger at the "Billionaire" but at the end of the
day Gwaker's is liable for their unlawful behavior resulting in damages, that
can't be blamed on Thiel. A Jury found Gwaker liable and awarded Hogan $140M,
that bankrupted Gawker, not Thiel.

If Gawker didn't willfully publish stolen sex tapes of Hulk Hogan in violation
of his rights, then Thiel would have wasted $10M and 3-5 years looking for
something that doesn't exist, and they would still be in business.

~~~
powowow
Yah good point.

Most small businesses would suffer no harm at all from an adversary with an
initial $10MM allocated toward an attack. After all, most businesses have no
employees who have ever done anything even remotely questionable. And besides,
it's super cheap and easy to win in court if truth and justice are on your
side. (and the same in print; there's no way to for an investigative
journalist to create disproportionately bad press)

You're definitely correct, right, and very smart. I agree with all of your
points.

~~~
coldtea
> _Most small businesses would suffer no harm at all from an adversary with an
> initial $10MM allocated toward an attack_

If those small businesses had done shitty things like Gawker, then let them
suffer!

------
throwaway5752
I pity some of the ultra rich. Personal paranoias and neuroticisms like this
can be indulged. Most involve loss of money or life, so you have quacks
selling life-extending treatments, bunkers for when society collapses, and so
on.

I don't see many people point this out, but societal collapse would be
gradual, and there will be no safe haven. Plenty of people with boats will be
able to make it to NZ, and money loses value outside of the societal structure
that allows it to be traded for goods (you will not sell your food in a famine
for any amount of money). The only way out is to prevent the collapse in the
first place.

------
leroy_masochist
I wish the author had spent more time dissecting the actual merits of the
_Sovereign Individual_ thesis and why SV billionaires find it credible, and
less time hurling bilious invective at Thiel.

Also, his summary of the whole Gawker affair is absurdly skewed -- Gawker was
a terrible website that used the protections of our free society to ruin
people's lives, and Thiel used our free society's libel laws to bankrupt it.
He played by the rules and won in that case.

~~~
selimthegrim
Anti barratry/champerty statutes went away because people were harassing the
NAACP, not because we wanted to enable any rich guy squashing people saying
things he doesn’t like about him. What next? UK libel laws? The class system
all over again?

~~~
sdinsn
So are you claiming that Gawker had the right to distribute Hogan's sex tape?

~~~
selimthegrim
Couldn’t Hogan have funded his lawsuit with whatever the final Gawker offer
was Thiel rejected?

------
misiti3780
Has anyone read this book referenced:

[https://www.amazon.com/Sovereign-Individual-Survive-
Collapse...](https://www.amazon.com/Sovereign-Individual-Survive-Collapse-
Welfare/product-reviews/0684810077)

~~~
johnnycab
You might want to consider a short primer before delving into _any_ works of
Rees-Mogg.

[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/nov/09/mystic-mogg-
ja...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/nov/09/mystic-mogg-jacob-rees-
mogg-willam-predicts-brexit-plans)

------
rconti
"Because they have run out of things to do with their money"

------
1996
Because above the Maslow pyramid, there's some insanity zone

Seriously: people with too much money quickly get surrounded with yes men, who
act as an echo chamber for these persons fears, and deliver them the white
elephants they want. An apocalypse is very unlikely. But yeah, have this sweet
NZ bunker. It's good for the local economy I guess?

Now they have their nice bunkers, I hope they start fearing death more, and
invest in anti senescence research. This could benefit a lot of people besides
NZ local economy.

~~~
lsiq
Is it actually so unlikely considering the sheer number of ways it could
happen? We live in a society where it's obvious that one event, one invention,
and one person can have an outsize effect on all the rest. Thankfully, these
end up usually being positive changes, but not always.

If you asked folks in 1920 how likely it would be that in less than 20 years
there would be another awful World War and millions of civilians would be
systematically slaughtered and turned into ashes, they probably would have
said that is "very unlikely" too.

These people are educated, understand tail risks and have the means to try and
hedge them. They are not insane, not even close.

~~~
1996
I'm not saying that's insane - just that the probability multiplied by the
consequences means they're misguided in being afraid of a global collapse
instead of being afraid of their death that is GUARANTEED given our limited
technology.

~~~
MagnumOpus
> they're misguided in being afraid

They might be spending 0.1% of their wealth (which they could never spend in
10 lifetimes anyway) on protection from an event (war on US soil or loss of
their US assets) that has 0.5-5% chance of happening during their lifetimes.
Put it like that, it is quite rational.

While even their entire wealth won't make them life forever. 100 billion is a
drop in bucket for senescence research, especially if it has to yield results
within 20-30 years.

~~~
1996
Do you invest 0.1% of your wealth in things you considered to have 0.5-5%
chance of happening? I don't. And I have a rather clear example in mind,
something I do consider at a 5% risk and yet refuse to bother about.

I don't, because it's not just the amount of wealth, but the consequences, and
the complexities it creates by snowball effect.

I don't want to talk about my stuff, but let's talk about their escape plans,
as I can easily imagine how it would require some similar planning.

These properties in NZ will require upkeep. It will keep their mind thinking
about that too. It will also cause other slight increases in costs (the
example of getting into a plane: add the costs of a 24/7 on-call flight team +
a spare plane in case the first one has some unexpected failure)

Even if they have someone whose job 24/7 is to take care of that, they may
want to visit the NZ properties time to time, to make sure things are
proceeding according to plan. Because you can't trust people for something as
important as that.

And their mind will incorporate these limits into whatever other calculations.
For example, a juicy business deal in Europe? A concert or a conference where
they can physically meet with some key person? Sorry but they shouldn't go to
that conference as it may be too far from NZ in a catastrophic scenario, with
the airspace closed, if they don't have another plane+team in Europe too.
What's another 0.1%? Sure, add this plane and team in Europe. Then you need a
manager, a company, etc. Then you want to have that on every continent. Then
you think, what if disaster strikes in APAC? Might as well get started buying
other properties in Chile!

I guess it may be fun for preppers, but when you reevaluate the practical
consequences, you come to the conclusion some things are better left undone,
to have razor sharp focus on the things you want done.

Simplicy has many virtues, especially in planning. Burning some ships is not
just an exercise in removing concentration - it also increases focus.

~~~
ajross
> Do you invest 0.1% of your wealth in things you considered to have 0.5-5%
> chance of happening? I don't.

Powerball and Mega Millions seem like an existence proof to the contrary. I'm
won't argue the upthread point that such an investment is _logical_ , but it's
not senseless either.

"Prepper enclaves as scratch tickets for billionaires" sounds about right to
me.

------
te_chris
Is there a better argument for a land tax in NZ?

------
m3kw9
There is probably one of many many apocalypse scenario where being in New
Zealand would work out.

------
goatinaboat
Better make sure there’s a nice place in the bunker for your pilot and his
family...

------
AtlasBarfed
It's the usual Atlas Shrugged secret canyon pipe dream by the ultrarich.

Of courses that canyon was an imaginary sexual paradise of Ayn Rand and 100
millionaires, a strangely feminist construct for the bible of the idiot right.

Like if the collapse happens, the idiot rich will be doing all the work that
they used to pay people with? What will they pay people with? Bitcoin? Zeroes
in a nonexistent computer system? Gold?

------
buboard
i dont know why the focus on Thiel, it's not like he s the sole libertarian in
the world , and the idea that maximum freedom and democracy are not compatible
is not uncommon among libertarians. even some democrats circa 2016 would agree

