I find it a bit humorous that Peter Thiel is "bullish" on life-extension research while fervently backing a party that is doing everything in its power to make Earth uninhabitable in the near future.
A common misconception. I think the average conservative definitely believes that we need to take measures to protect this planet. We just don't necessarily believe that government should be the method of action. Traditionally the market is vastly more efficient at solving these hard problems...
The precondition here is, of course, incorrect. The latest Pew survey puts the percentage of Republicans who believe in anthropogenic climate change at about 25%.
Markets are efficient because firms optimize along essentially one dimension. It is naive to think that markets will magically solve any problem that does not naturally align with that.
The problem is that the market is not great at solving "Tragedy of the Commons" situations. The ideal solution, IMO, is to agree a cap on CO2 emmissions, but make them tradable, so that the market can be used to figure out the most efficient way to limit the emissions.
The market needs incentive to solve these long term problems, but our entire economy is built around incentivising short term growth over long-term stability.
I am curious, how could the market efficiently avoid the continued increase in atmospheric CO2 without government interventions? Isn't the continued use of incredibly cheap energy sources like oil too tempting?
I think the misconception is on your side here.
For the longest time, conservatives said that climate change was a hoax, then that it might be happening but it's no big deal, then now it seems the position is that it may be a big deal but it's a natural process and humans shouldn't try to solve it.
I've talked to some people who I think are smart, in tech and finance, about why they like Trump (two of which also love Thiel, and I myself think Peter Thiel is underrated). If you sincerely want to understand where they are coming from, I have some reading for you.
None of my acquaintances in tech are public about supporting Trump. Finance is a bit different. And this is not at all true of my blue-collar friends (also note I live in New Hampshire, not SV). Unfortunately I find it is getting harder to talk politics, at all, with my very liberal friends. And it is very easy to discuss (and even disagree) with my conservative friends.
It really depends on who you ask. Stereotypical democrats nowadays primarily measure racial and gender inequality primarily, with economics and wealth inequality coming second and rural incomes and quality of life coming far behind. Stereotypical republicans primarily measure GDP, economic freedom, and total power of the country.
Politicans like Sanders and Trump are rising because they focus more on issues like income inequality and declining quality of life for the lower and middle classes. Both address globalization and labor leverage, though they address it differently. While they are culturally diametrically opposed, they are still remaining popular because they are addressing these issues that other politicans don't address, seemingly because big money has caused them to ignore those issues.
Okay. I am a Republican, but I do not understand how our party can have leading candidates who are hereditary billionaires or multimilillionaires, yet trumpet that it is not corrupted by “big money”.
I do not think money corrupts, if it did, then Republicans would be the first to suffer.
If Clinton got in we were basically 100% going to war with Russia since she promised to create a no fly zone in Syria. I consider that a win. Not getting into a nuclear exchange with NK is also a plus.
Trump is actually punishing China for the first time in decades. With Bolsonaro in office in Brazil we now control 80%+ of world soybean and corn production, meaning we can effectively starve China into compliance if necessary
Economy is doing well, wage growth is above inflation for the first time in decades, 3.1% as of today's jobs report.
There is a huge amount of sarcasm here, but I have done incredibly well since Nov 2016. Like 15% year over year improvements. Under Obama, I saw no growth at all.
Only 54% of Americans invest in the stock market[1]. Those who don't invest measure economic growth by different metrics like inflation-adjusted incomes and quality of life.
So the worst you possibly could have done between 2012 and 2016 was a 22.6% gain. Using more middling points of 36 and 50, you'd have gained almost 39%. Annualised (rounding up to 4 years) that's between 5 and 8.5%.
The stock market has climbed at a steeper average rate since then, but "didn't gain anything to speak of" is misleading.
The Vanguard Total Stock Market Fund (VTI or VTSMX) increased 66% between Oct 2012 - Oct 2016 [1]. That's a 10.1% CAGR. Are you sure you "didn't gain anything to speak of"?
I personally have a love-hate relationship with Trump. He’s bombastic, obnoxious, and annoying. But he gets things done, and I have to say I really do like the chest thumping America-first attitude and perspective on policy.
If you try to measure Trump by some conventional, objective-reality based means, he is IMO, probably the worst president America's ever had.
But people didn't vote for him based on such reasons and his supporters don't judge him on such metrics. Trump is a subjective feeling and he makes his base feel pretty great, so...
How about "lies per word spoken"? How about "rationality of propositions ranked by economic analysis"? How about "number of personal lawsuits and investigations incurred per minute"? Any of those work for you?
I added an "IMO" for clarity. And yeah, I could supply a long list. This list could include items such as "climate change" and "foments domestic terrorism".
The point is, any such list will be based on assumptions that Trump opponents and supporters do not share.
"Helped" is a loaded word since everyone has a different opinion of what helped is.
I'm not a big fan of Trump, but I do have to admit he is delivering on what he said he'd do. Pass tax reform, curtail immigration, go up against China in terms of trade, get conservative judges on the Supreme Court, start the peace process with North Korea.
A lot of people may hate him, but he is getting a lot more stuff done than past presidents.
What I’ve found interesting is that there is a formal term “histrionic reoccurrence”, and amazingly an important writer on the subject is named G.W. Trompf.
His favorability ratings are comparable to Obama's, Clinton's and Reagan's at this point in their presidency. He could easily get re-elected if the economy is still going strong.
I agree with the point that he has a very significant chance, wouldn't even disagree that he's the favorite (wouldn't agree either, just because I don't know all the indicators precisely enough).
However, it's worth noting that his ratings have never been above 50%, whereas all three of those presidents had honeymoon periods above 50% right after being elected, and returned to above 50% approval before being re-elected. Saying his approval ratings are comparable is technically true, but a little misleading. It would be accurate to say "some presidents had similarly bad approval numbers, but recovered and were re-elected. If his approval numbers rise, like theirs did, that would suggest he'll win."
The biggest difference between 2020 and past elections is: who even stands a chance of beating Trump? His opposition party is in shambles and I can't think of a single solid candidate who would do well running against him. Sanders was the closest thing to a viable opponent for him and the Democrats nipped his then-rapidly-rising support in the bud by going with HRC instead.
The Democrats have become "The F Trump Party," obstructionist in their own words... but support for Trump is basically at an all-time high, so this isn't a very effective strategy.
Theoretically the right candidate could come along, powerful, charismatic, and well-versed in Trump's style of politics, and "put him in his place" ...but somehow I have a hard time seeing that happen, looking around at the potential Democrat 2020 candidates today. In fact I think there's a nontrivial chance of a third party viral literal meme candidate becoming more popular than the Democrat candidate in 2020.
If anyone can name some potential candidates they see as viable I'd be interested in looking into them if I haven't already, but like I said, for the time being 2020 looks like a completely one-sided fight.
And it’s not just unemployment that’s down. Latest numbers are showing an uptick in actual wages. Combine that with people taking a look at their pay stubs and you’ve got a recipe for succcess in 2020.
Can you provide evidence that real inflation adjusted wages are going up? It's my understanding that wages for the bottom 60% of the country have fallen or stagnated since the 70's and have only gone up in terms of non-inflation adjusted, or have actually gone down.
The wealthy/elite classes are doing absolutely fantastic under Trump though, and are getting tax cuts and wage increases. Those don't represent America, though.
Edit: Simple Google search shows my thoughts to be true [1]. Wages aren't rising quicker than inflation/cost of living, so saying wages are increasing or are "up" is a bit inaccurate.
He did it by exploding the deficit (bunker busting tax cuts). Basically taking money from America's children to give to America's adults, who are too miseducated to realise.
You're comparing it to the middle of an enormous economic crash, and even then relying on an estimate of 4% which is high outside of an economic crisis/recession. Let's wait until the tax cuts have kicked in for a couple of years and then count it, but even by the estimates on the link you provided it's spending as if you're in an economic meltdown when you're not, and high by historical standards.
> Plus boosting the standard deduction is giving middle class people a few extra thousand a year
No, it isn't, if you use the common sense of “middle class” to mean “middle income”, rather than the classical “petit bourgeoisie”. The change is less than $6000 in the standard deduction, so even if “a few” means only 2, you'd need over a 33% federal marginal tax rate to get a few thousand from it, which requires an income after the standard deduction of $200,000+.
> His favorability ratings are comparable to Obama's, Clinton's and Reagan's at this point in their presidency
They are comparable to Reagan’s, if you look at bare approval, but, as a 2.5+ percentage point difference is pretty significant in approval, less so to Clinton or Obama.
But bare approval is not really a good guide (net approval and bare disapproval are better.) While 538 posts Trump approval/disapproval/net, the default comparators is bare approval. But if you click over to compare disapproval or net approval, Trump is clearly in a significantly worse position than any of the past Presidents listed (including Reagan, despite bare approval being nearly identical.) Majority disapproval at a comparable point is unprecedented, as is greater than 10 points net disapproval.
Inheriting the country when things are looking down right amazing economically.
I do strongly believe that the US would have been doing great irrespective of the person in power. (I strongly dislike Trump as a person, and do have strong bias here. I also do kind-of believe that he is not very bright)
But, should there be reason to believe that America's economic prosperity is due to the Trump admin, I would love to be enlightened on the matter.
I think that faith in the United State's economy has gone up as our administration, for better or for worse, has taken a hardline stance on "America First".
Economies are all about skepticism and when the strongest economy in the world decides to make policy in strengthening its position - well, it certainly doesn't hurt. It's especially helpful that he had a decent starting point to begin with.
I can't help it myself. Even if I didn't know Donald Trump existed, he is the poster boy of the kind person I would utterly dislike. So, it is very difficult for me to evaluate his presidency through an objective lens. I am human after all.
It doesn't help that polarization in media means, he is portrayed either as a do-no-wrong messiah or Satan himself.
Do you know of any relatively objective report that talks about his policies and bills he has passed (that would have been opposed by a democratic president), and their effects ?
I know a few good (what I believe to be) objective and research driven sources, but all of them are very critical of Trump.
I would really appreciate being directed towards a piece that talks about his achievements as well (without putting him on a pedestal)
HRC implied in her recent Kara Swisher interview that she's going to wait for the Democrats to put 2020 candidates forth until Trump destroys all of them slash they destroy each other, and then when there's no one left she'll step up to the plate and become the Democrat nominee. Again.
At this current point in time, I can't see any reason why this won't be the exact situation come 2020.
The economy usually predicts Presidential approval, but Trump has managed to secure an unprecedented (for this point in a first term) -10.8 point net approval and majority (52.9%) disapproval; if that keeps up the biggest danger to a challenger (well, aside from voter suppression), even more than the structural advantages Republicans enjoy, will be an overly brutal crowded primary.
Peter, what are you doing? I loved your book 0 to 1 and your rogue style but this makes it seem like you're (even more?) a jerk and out of touch with your peers.
When it comes to Trump support, look no further than the fear of Brown People. It's just that simple. There is nothing else he is consistent on.
Generally, the more intellect, the less that sort of thing is likely, but racism traps some people that are not quite dumb. It's what's in their heart that matters.
So a rich white man born into privilege and complicit with America's domestic racism, wealth inequalities, and staunch disregard for climate change, supports a candidate with the same ideals?
> I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible
From the article linked below.
Honestly, reading that over, his political ideology is a hot mess of inconsistency. I'm not exactly sure what the hell Peter Thiel stands for, other than his own pocket book.
I think the funniest thing is this idea that you can escape to space or wherever and enjoy a free society, as if all the problems didn’t come from humans in the first place.
He's very wealthy so he can insulate himself from Trump's attacks on the LGBT community which he is a part of. Too bad many people will suffer because of this.
I really enjoy hearing the minds here on their opinion of why Peter Thiel is backing Trump. I don't quite get the motivation and if there are any insights to this, please fire away.
1) He's rich and directly benefits from the tax cuts.
2) The cuts to social services don't affect people in his pay grade.
3) He lives in a gated community and wouldn't be targeted for harm by the sort of people that are now emboldened to say the quiet part out loud.
4) He founded Palantir and wants to secure more government contracts
5) His experience with being outed by Gawker (completely unethical IMO) probably also led to him viewing "the media" as a monolithic force out to get him.
The rich pay most of the taxes, therefore they will "benefit" most from tax cuts, if you define "benefit" as "keeping your own money." How can someone who pays no or little income tax get a huge benefit from a tax cut?
Why are you framing your question as though there aren't 10s of millions of Americans who live somewhere between "billionaire" and "poverty level". They are the <$100k household income level that are paying a bigger % of their income on taxes than Thiel ever will.
And unlike Thiel, they don't have access to accountants that can shuttle their cash away into tax shelters or lobbyists who will buy off politicians for peanuts to get them to vote for even more cuts.
I've seen a presentation by Thiel, which i can't search for at the moment, in which he makes a somewhat nuanced argument that globalization is only sometimes good, depending on how much technological innovation is happening in the economy. He observes that outside of computing, technological development has to some degree stalled since the 70s, and concludes that in such an economic environment, unfettered globalization is to be avoided.
No political party in the world supports "unfettered globalization". If that were so, WTO conferences would not drag on for years because countries were deadlocked over relaxing agricultural subsidies.
Wild guess: he fears having more money taken from him in business and personally if the opposition wins (both directly and indirectly via policies). He likely feels the opposition continually asks for more (from those at his level) and mismanages it. One might suspect it's party driven, not Trump in particular.
I'd say tax cuts and a seat at the table. Also Thiel's Palantir thrives if there is more surveillance (though Obama was pretty bullish on surveillance too...).
Other than that, he's fairly libertarian, so he _should_ be for free trade and free immigration rather than protectionism.
Likely because he thinks he has a good chance of winning regardless of whether it is right or wrong, and that being on his side will personally benefit him, so the usual motivation. He's very similar to Trump.
Right but how does this benefit Peter directly? I was trying to think of many ways, both positive and negative. Tax benefits is a simplistic one...a possible negative way maybe crazy but if US innovation goes down because of Trump, possibly New Zealand will prosper as the alternative silicon valley but I don't have enough understanding to say such things.
Trump's (by policy at least) an anti-democratic racist right authoritarian.
He's not a libertarian by any stretch, though a right libertarian might tend to agree with his views on what government should not do. (Though if the “libertarian” part means anything, probably have strong disagreements with much of what he deployed government to do.)
He's a left-leaning independent who happens to espouse a few republican type ideals like low taxes to stimulate the economy, and a few democrat type ideals such as legalizing pot and lgbt rights. He could have credibly run for the democrat party's nomination and probably won it, in which case he'd be the darling of the left (and Hillary would still hate him). Remember, everybody on the left, including the last president, said all the same things he said about the immigration issue just a few years ago.
He's not "right" or "racist" in any way, and he got where he is through the democratic process...
I would agree with you he's not a libertarian. I am going to laugh my rear end off when he tells the DEA to take pot off the schedule though.
Trump is obviously a Republican (whatever he may have had as an affiliation before), and equally-obviously not “left-leaning”, a shown by his actions with control over actual policy (whatever he might have pretended to make favorable connections with various, especially New York, politicians when his only interest in policy was getting favorable treatment for his own personal business interests.)
> He could have credibly run for the democrat party's nomination and probably won it
That's an interesting fantasy, that is only plausible in that (given his ambiguous political positions before the campaign) one might imagine him adopting a completely different persona that didn't back bigoted and right-wing causes and yet was no less inconsistent with his pre-campaign persona. But his campaign persona, and even moreso his policies and appointments in office, have been consistently hard right, and often outright bigoted, from his demonizing immigrants (including currently-legal ones as part of his campaign to curtail currently-legal immigration, especially family-based immigration) to the Muslim ban to his his anti-LGBT policies, to his stance against investigations of police civil rights violations that were ongoing when he took office (which were echoed even louder and given concrete policy substance by his appointee as Attorney-General, who is in lockstep on this issue even if they have not seen eye to eye over Trump's personal legal exposure.)
You know he was a registered democrat once, right?
He's not backed any "bigoted right wing causes." You know there was never a Muslim ban, right? You know that the immigration laws haven't changed, the previous administration simply ignored them. For anyone who believes in the rule of law, the laws are supposed to be enforced -- it's a foundational principle of operating a society. That's why he's continually called for Congress to change the laws if they want things changed.
Police civil rights violations? Are you confused into thinking that local policing in the US is somehow affected by DOJ policies? The DOJ does not often get directly involved in local policing issues -- they've historically only gotten involved in the most egregious of cases.
> You know he was a registered democrat once, right?
Yes, and I addressed that.
> You know there was never a Muslim ban, right?
There is an exclusion policy which Trump himself referred to as that. You can choose whether you think he did that because the polciy is actually bigoted or simply as a technique to appeal to bigots, I suppose.
> You know that the immigration laws haven't changed,
Trump has, in fact, campaigned for changes to them to reduce the scope of legal immigration, particularly to eliminate much currently legal family-based immigration (and even most recently asserted they he can universally abrogate a Constitutional guarantee in order to deny citizenship to children of immigrants.)
> For anyone who believes in the rule of law, the laws are supposed to be enforced
Well, yes, that is why a lot of people are upset about his suggestion that he would revoke birthright citizenship, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, by executive order.
> Police civil rights violations? Are you confused into thinking that local policing in the US is somehow affected by DOJ policies?
Are you confused into thinking that the DoJ investigations into misconduct and federal civil rights charges (or, more often, consent decrees entered into to forestall such charges) don't effect local policing, both in the jurisdictions directly involved and others that don't want to end up under a DoJ microscope?
> they've historically only gotten involved in the most egregious of cases.
Yes, and there were some of those currently ongoing at the time of tj transition.
Interesting. I would have taken this for a lazy slur, but that article does seem to be saying basically that democracy is something he wants to escape from. That's a fascinating angle here.
Peter Thiel is rich and has a Randian "fuck you, I got mine" attitude. The GOP's policies disproportionally favor the rich without regard for practically anything else. A Trump presidency means that control is largely in the hands of the GOP. Hence Thiel favors Trump.
1. Zero to one talks about the importance of optimism vs pessimism for the future. Compare Obama saying the US needs to get used to sub 2% GDP growth vs Trump saying we can hit 5%. Trump isn't afraid to think big at the very least when it comes to space force and similar big projects
2. Thiel is libertarian and sees Trump as a means to reduce government. Romney got in trouble a few years back for saying a hard truth, that 47% of people don't pay taxes and are never going to vote for less free stuff. At some point it becomes two wolves arguing with a sheep on what's for dinner
3. Personal gain, Thiel has Palantir as well as another company that would use AI to create a "virtual" boarder wall via image recognition
Partly cynically because he knows Trump is an incredibly simple man. He likes people that like him. That's it. That's all it takes to be on Trump's good side, whether you're a Saudi or a white nationalist. He really doesn't discriminate as long as you say nice things about him.
The other reason is that he agrees with at least a decent chunk of Trump's policies. He probably supports lower taxes, reduced regulations, and probably greater isolationism.
> Questions about Trump’s name-calling and lack of civility were brushed aside. “I don’t think Trump’s nicknames are that nasty,” Thiel said. “They’re powerfully accurate.”
I wish people would stop asking about this crap and ask Trump supporters how they feel about detaining asylum seekers, kidnapping, drugging and abusing their children, or how they feel about Trump kowtowing to Putin, or MBS, or about the corruption and nepotism. About the fact that we don't have a fucking ambassador to Turkey or Saudi Arabia because JARED is supposed to be handling it.
Stop asking people about if they think the Tweets are too mean...
Lots of downvoting going on in this thread. Care to comment?
